Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Elias Pettersson | #40 | C


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Isn’t Gradin his agent though?

He's our head scout in Sweden. Has been right more than a few times when it comes to European players.

 

I don't agree with him that Pettersson should have been in the NHL though. Last thing we need is one of our top prospects suffering a concussion because he can't handle the physicality of the NHL.

Edited by DeNiro
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeNiro said:

He's our head scout in Sweden. Has been right more than a few times when it comes to European players.

Ah my bad, who’s EP’s agent then that I’m thinking of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

He's our head scout in Sweden. Has been right more than a few times when it comes to European players.

I'm not against EP playing in Sweden this year, don't get me wrong.  But playing on the big ice is way different than playing in North America.  Time and space is going to be a big adjustment.  

 

Having said that, I saw some highlights on the news tonight.  EP scored 2 and 1 assist today and looked especially sick with the assist.  The kid has talent.  Now, how to bring him along is the question.  Carefully I would say.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm not against EP playing in Sweden this year, don't get me wrong.  But playing on the big ice is way different than playing in North America.  Time and space is going to be a big adjustment.  

 

Having said that, I saw some highlights on the news tonight.  EP scored 2 and 1 assist today and looked especially sick with the assist.  The kid has talent.  Now, how to bring him along is the question.  Carefully I would say.

The way I like to think about player development is good moves and bad moves. The biggest factor in a player's success is in the player, so its hard to say there can only be one path to follow. I think sending him back to Europe was good move, because he's playing at a higher level than he was previously, and he is wildly successful. His success now is a great thing, and its great for the Canucks. He might not be contributing to the Comets or to the Canucks, but his ELC gets pushed forward, and he will be a better player once that ELC kicks in.

Adversity can be good, but if you can move up in baby steps and continue to be wildly successful, why not? If he was sent to AHL and got stifled by the physicality (very possible,) he would have to change his game, when maybe all he needed was more bulk. Let him play at the highest level on big ice (which arguably he is,) then run him through training camp. Let him compete; if he's weak, back to Europe. If he's strong on the boards but not scoring (doubtful, but a possibilty on small ice) send him to the AHL til hes a bonafide scorer. If he's scoring and strong on the boards, give him 9 games.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ghost-M said:

Again your sure this is a correlation to a losing culture and simply not due to poor management decisions by lowe/mctavish not developing prospects properly and rushing them into the nhl playing big minutes where guys like hall and rnh got injured early in their careers? Its definitely the losing culture they cant mentally overcome?  Halls having a pretty good year in jersey to.

 

Because mcdavid and drasaitl were brought into that culture and the oilers made it to the 2nd round last year. Although in the case of drasaitl they did it properly and sent him down even when they were bad, and they thankfully did that with puljuravi and yamamoto now to. 

The very fact that Hall is suddenly playing well AFTER he's left Edmonton I think goes against what you are saying. If Hall had stayed in Edmonton, there's a good chance he would have played well last season when Edmonton was playing well and then would be playing poorly this season like Edmonton is currently doing. This season's proven that losing games sucks the life out of players. Look at the last couple of games Edmonton has played and try to even find a smidge of life in their game right now. It's non-existant, like the few years before last year.

 

In fact, I would argue that their lifelessness right now is because of the years prior to last year. They are reliving the past and are stuck in it.This is what happens with you lose a lot. It's easier to get into ruts and harder to get out of them.

 

When you lose on a consistent base, it gets to you. It's why teams get into ruts and have a hard time getting out of them. It's why players often feel hurt when going through scoring droughts. Think of times when you were down on your luck. It's easy to poke around and say "oh we should lose a lot to gain more", but when we are talking about human beings: players who want to play hockey: it would take someone without a soul, someone completely disconnected from the game itself, to not be able to see what kind of impact that's going to have when players lose game after game.

Edited by The Lock
  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Darius71 said:

Pens won cups because they got a generational talent. Thats pure luck.  Plus all the teams you cite would not have the same odds at winning those players today.  Look at Colorado, they finished dead last and had to pick 4th last year.    The same rules do not apply today.  Highly unlikely those teams would accumulate the same players with todays draft rules.  I agree that tanking has some benefits, but the Canucks have picked 5th, 5th, 6th and 9th in the past 5 years, its easy for you to want them to keep finishing at the bottom of the league for another x number of years when you do not have one dime tied up with the team. 

You make some good points but to an extent oversimplify the argument. The term 'tanking' is over simplified by many to make an argument. I could be described as a 'tanker' since the '12-'13 season. My arguments are always based on a roster timeline that maximizes the opportunity for a serious CUP challenge. Picking in the top 10 of a draft is no guarantee but risk mitigation IMHO. Looking at the roster timeline a GM has to decide whether tweaking the mix gives the group another shot or whether a rebuild has to be started. Either way that decision goes has consequences for the org.

 

If Gillis had started to make moves in '12-'13 he might have lessened the impact. His challenge was deciding which assets had to be moved and for who. His decision was to add in an attempt at another CUP. It failed and the org is still trying to climb out of the result. 

 

IMO accessing the roster and prospect depth almost dictates what a GM has to do. Benning has done a good job of this. Acquistion-Development-Assessment have to be the priorities of the Canucks for another 3 years. If that process means winning becomes secondary so be it. Development requires TOI for younger players which works against consistent winning. Not the end of the world. 

 

You suggest that the Vancouver market will not stand for a rebuild as fans will desert a losing team and ownership cannot handle lost revenue. To me that logic condemns a team to average or if lucky slightly above average outcomes. Over the span of time a team likely will not maintain the outcomes you are suggesting.  Management is absolutely critical in the rebuilding process as their decisions in all facets likely decide the long term success. Benning can draft in the top 10 which reduces the chances of a bad selection but he still has to develop that pick. If the pick is not developing as anticipated he has to move him out and hopefully recover value.   

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

You make some good points but to an extent oversimplify the argument. The term 'tanking' is over simplified by many to make an argument. I could be described as a 'tanker' since the '12-'13 season. My arguments are always based on a roster timeline that maximizes the opportunity for a serious CUP challenge. Picking in the top 10 of a draft is no guarantee but risk mitigation IMHO. Looking at the roster timeline a GM has to decide whether tweaking the mix gives the group another shot or whether a rebuild has to be started. Either way that decision goes has consequences for the org.

 

If Gillis had started to make moves in '12-'13 he might have lessened the impact. His challenge was deciding which assets had to be moved and for who. His decision was to add in an attempt at another CUP. It failed and the org is still trying to climb out of the result

 

IMO accessing the roster and prospect depth almost dictates what a GM has to do. Benning has done a good job of this. Acquistion-Development-Assessment have to be the priorities of the Canucks for another 3 years. If that process means winning becomes secondary so be it. Development requires TOI for younger players which works against consistent winning. Not the end of the world. 

 

You suggest that the Vancouver market will not stand for a rebuild as fans will desert a losing team and ownership cannot handle lost revenue. To me that logic condemns a team to average or if lucky slightly above average outcomes. Over the span of time a team likely will not maintain the outcomes you are suggesting.  Management is absolutely critical in the rebuilding process as their decisions in all facets likely decide the long term success. Benning can draft in the top 10 which reduces the chances of a bad selection but he still has to develop that pick. If the pick is not developing as anticipated he has to move him out and hopefully recover value.   

One team that we all might watch is Chicago. Their vets are getting up there, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, and Kane, I'm not sure that they have the depth in their oranization to make many more runs at the cup with this group. Bowman is a master though, but....

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ghost-M said:

 

Many teams are poor and dont rush prospects, i completely disagree these losing culture ruined them, again that was a management decision to rush them and it was quite frankly wrong. Just because you have a poor team does not mean you rush prospects into the nhl.

 

Its not like arizona right now rushed domi, or strome (who is still in the ahl) despite losing. Its a management decision and a poor one at that.

I think your point about management is key. Comparing draft position between orgs does not mean a lot because management of those picks are as critical as their draft position. Higher picks are simply a less risky proposition not a guarantee. The Oilers, Laffers and Sabres have been classic examples of futility.   

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SwissCanucks said:

Haven't seen this clip posted yet, what a beautiful assist by Elias Pettersson, followed moments after by a goal.

 

Here is a link for you:

 

http://www.swisshabs.ch/quel-assist-d-elias-pettersson

A gif was posted earlier, but that one is in real-time, and you can really see how fast and shifty he is -- not just the hands, but the body moves and fakes as well... and he does it all without even looking at the puck.  Really hard not to get excited, but like Boeser the last couple years, it's not misplaced.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

One team that we all might watch is Chicago. Their vets are getting up there, Toews, Seabrook, Keith, and Kane, I'm not sure that they have the depth in their oranization to make many more runs at the cup with this group. Bowman is a master though, but....

Yes, they have a mediocre record but is it just another slow start or are they actually starting to slide out of that contender status now?  Another to watch is Detroit -- they have slid to where they are no longer a playoff team, and considering the pedigree of Holland, is he showing the capability to stabilize and get the Wings back up into the post-season and contention in short order or are they going to continue to slide for a few years and need a bigger overhaul?  So far it looks like the latter is happening.

 

This is all related to the re-signing of Benning, at least according to some in the local media starting to pimp up Holland as a potential replacement.  The best GMs are ones who are able to not only build a contender but keep their team up there instead of just being a shooting star burning brightly for a short period then falling back off and needing a full rebuild, as is the case with most.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

You make some good points but to an extent oversimplify the argument. The term 'tanking' is over simplified by many to make an argument. I could be described as a 'tanker' since the '12-'13 season. My arguments are always based on a roster timeline that maximizes the opportunity for a serious CUP challenge. Picking in the top 10 of a draft is no guarantee but risk mitigation IMHO. Looking at the roster timeline a GM has to decide whether tweaking the mix gives the group another shot or whether a rebuild has to be started. Either way that decision goes has consequences for the org.

 

If Gillis had started to make moves in '12-'13 he might have lessened the impact. His challenge was deciding which assets had to be moved and for who. His decision was to add in an attempt at another CUP. It failed and the org is still trying to climb out of the result. 

 

IMO accessing the roster and prospect depth almost dictates what a GM has to do. Benning has done a good job of this. Acquistion-Development-Assessment have to be the priorities of the Canucks for another 3 years. If that process means winning becomes secondary so be it. Development requires TOI for younger players which works against consistent winning. Not the end of the world. 

 

You suggest that the Vancouver market will not stand for a rebuild as fans will desert a losing team and ownership cannot handle lost revenue. To me that logic condemns a team to average or if lucky slightly above average outcomes. Over the span of time a team likely will not maintain the outcomes you are suggesting.  Management is absolutely critical in the rebuilding process as their decisions in all facets likely decide the long term success. Benning can draft in the top 10 which reduces the chances of a bad selection but he still has to develop that pick. If the pick is not developing as anticipated he has to move him out and hopefully recover value.   

It could be argued that he did try. In 2012-13 he traded for Kassian.  The belief was we needed a rock em sock em power forward to add toughness to the squad. He just wasn't ready...

 

And he also kept his young goaltender. Rather than the rumoured Jeff Carter trade. Ultimately trading Schneids for a top draft pick.

 

These are rebuilding moves? 

 

As to supporting the team when its down?  Support waivered badly when we were losing last year. There is no evidence th team gets support through thick & thin.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

The NHL effective centres are typically at 200 lbs or more with the odd exceptions. Coaches value size in their centres to offset others teams larger centres and for them to withstand the punishment down low in the offensive zone. They also value the size for face-offs as strength is instrumental to winning face-offs for most.

Wingers can certainly be big and physical as well but your smaller skilled wingers are quite often converted from being natural centres. Smaller wingers like Gudreau and Kane (as examples) can play more on the periphery while still being very effective. They don't have to go to the dirty areas in front of the net to be successful but there are very few centres that can get away with that.

I think it is fair to say that Pettersson has been below average in the face-off circle but he is not taking that many either.

 

At the risk of being a broken record... a future 1st line of Kane, Pettersson, Boeser , Kane adding some size and snarl (as well as shooting) would help with any size concerns (that and Boeser, while not exactly a bruiser, is also not a waterbug or wilting flower either). Also, IIRC, Boeser (RH'd) actually has a decent record on faceoffs. Him and EP (LH'd) could take turns on draws on their strong sides as well. Just a thought...

 

14 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

You know, I will even give you that one.

In the past 10 drafts (2008 - 2017) the following teams have had the most top 5 picks.

1. Edmonton - 6

2. Islanders - 5

3. Colorado - 4

4. Toronto - 4

5. Florida - 4

6. Winnipeg/Atlanta - 3

7. Columbus - 3

8. Tampa - 3

 

How many Stanley Cups are in there?

I love this post so much I want to make out with it.

 

14 hours ago, Ghost-M said:

LoL your just citing bad teams with bad management.

Forget all the nebulous, periphery stuff of 'culture' etc (though I do largely agree that it is in fact, important, if not the entire reason teams continue to perform poorly).  I agree that 'management' is indeed likely the largest and most key factor to a successful team (along with a healthy dose of luck). Good trades, good scouting, good development and yes 'culture' included etc, etc are far more important factors than simply where one happens to pick (which isn't a terribly controllable factor these days).

 

It's why I'm a proponent of the relentless pursuit of improvement by any means that I believe our present management is following. There's no room for 'tanking' in that philosophy. You become a better team by simply taking every opportunity to become a better team. That includes trades, UFA's, drafting, development etc. Constant pursuit of improvement. You don't forego signing/trading for a good player because you hope to do poorly to maybe get a lotto pick. You take any and every opportunity to add/improve assets (granted with age, cap etc as qualifiers and a view to the long term of where you're team is headed). 

 

 

14 hours ago, canuck2288 said:

I like the anti tank proposal that gives the top ranked non playoff team the first pick and then down the list to the last place team. The order then goes to the lowest playoff qualifier up to the first overall finisher. 

 

no lottery and no tanking and you still give the “weaker teams” the higher draft picks 

 

 

I've always been a fan of that system. 17th place team gets 1st OA, 18th 2nd  OA etc until you get down to 31, then back to the 16th team, 15th etc. It's simple and would reward teams on the bubble actually making an effort while still giving crappy teams relatively high picks to rebuild with. It rewards competent management and 'try'. Would also give players on those 17-31 teams a reason to keep playing after they're eliminated from playoffs for a better product all around.

Edited by aGENT
  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to Elias Pettersson | #40 | C
  • -SN- locked and unlocked this topic

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...