morrissex95 Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 Trading Granlund is a $&!#ty idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 11 hours ago, Crabcakes said: Agree. A rebuild should be forever. If a GM can get to the point where they're contending and not ignoring the future, that is ideal. In this way, we shouldn't see the rapid decline that the Canucks have. Not to mention the salary cap gets in the way and good players may have to be moved before the core peaks. I honestly think that the benefits of raising the draft age DON'T outweigh having 1 or 2 really bad drafts in a row. Shoot. I mean't the opposite of the highlighted part from the original post. @stawns @janisahockeynut If you want to take back your rep points. Please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 5 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I understand why you mentioned the Sedins........But I didn't........they are just not going any where......so although I said vet's , I honestly wasn't including them I know. It's just a better example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 10 hours ago, stawns said: Honestly, a 20 year old draft, to me, is the ideal. Everyone wins from minor hockey to JR to minors to NHL I don't mean what I said there about the draft. I messed it up and didn't catch my mistake until now. Sure, and older draft would be better but I think if they made the draft age older, they would have an extremely weak draft for a year. Or it they made the change gradual over a couple of years, it would be less weak but over a longer time. Either way, it would be very unfair and violate the point of the draft being used as a tool for parity. They might as well not have a draft at all for a year. Face it, the draft is also a huge PR love in for the league. Who would look at it if one year they are drafting future stars and the next year, players who would be lucky to make an AHL squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 33 minutes ago, Crabcakes said: I don't mean what I said there about the draft. I messed it up and didn't catch my mistake until now. Sure, and older draft would be better but I think if they made the draft age older, they would have an extremely weak draft for a year. Or it they made the change gradual over a couple of years, it would be less weak but over a longer time. Either way, it would be very unfair and violate the point of the draft being used as a tool for parity. They might as well not have a draft at all for a year. Face it, the draft is also a huge PR love in for the league. Who would look at it if one year they are drafting future stars and the next year, players who would be lucky to make an AHL squad. I don't get that........with a 20 year old draft players are going straight to pro hockey. There's much more certainty about what kind a player a 20 year old is going to be as opposed to an 18 year old. As for a weak draft or missed draft? Its an even field, all teams have the same experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 One of the things not mentioned is the rights of the player and the contract they began with.....do if they came into the league thinking they were in the 17 year draft, and then it changed to 19 while they were in the CHL after they have signed a contract with their junior club, then there might be some anti trust issues......because if they are 16 had a choice to go to Europe and play in a adult league there, therefore preventing them from making money.......not sure if that works out as intended, but it would be my argument You could also argue that it may have changed their development as a player...also there maybe contracts to prevent players from leaving their teams in CHL and going to Europe as an under ager under contract...................just a bloody mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 So getting back to the original post........I would do some version of the original post......... I really wonder what Benning's thoughts are going to be, if the kids outplay the veterans and the veterans aren't that bad........I say he keeps the kids on the farm until injuries hit, then platoons the kids in and figure what healthy vets he moves at the TDL It could be a really great tough decisions coming up..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't get that........with a 20 year old draft players are going straight to pro hockey. There's much more certainty about what kind a player a 20 year old is going to be as opposed to an 18 year old. As for a weak draft or missed draft? Its an even field, all teams have the same experience. I agree that the older draft would be better. I said that. All the drafts that have happened in the past would have been made at a disadvantage if they raise the draft age. Then there's the even field as you call it. The teams at the top of the league would be less affected than the teams at the bottom of the league. Top teams would be more able to cope with a virtually nil draft. Teams who happen to be at the bottom will miss an opportunity at parity which is the real point of the draft system as it is set up. Then there's the legal quagmire that Jan is alluding to above. I just don't think the draft age will be changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted September 17, 2017 Author Share Posted September 17, 2017 14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Hi Stawns I am surprised you asked........ So lets take Philadelphia, who has the #1 ranked prospect pool, and has a marginally better team (mid rankings) You could argue, they will not have to rely on the next 3 or 4 drafts to rebuild their team, as they can pretty much just let the prospects they have develop, and "IF" they all develop according to plan, they will have a good team. This can be said for Arizona, Winnipeg, Carolina and Edmonton to a lesser extent...............etc When they implement the 19 year old draft, there will be a void of elite players available through the draft for several years, as the 17 year olds which would be drafted today, age to be draft eligible at 19 years of age, as suggested............. While we are still mid rebuild, and say Philadelphia is not, the lack of elite talent available during those 2 years, will not effect them to the same degree. This will be the same for all teams in starting or in mid rebuild, such as Colorado, Vegas, NJ etc. When and "IF" this happens, my guess will be that teams picking at the top of the draft will produce less elite talent during those 2 years, and this will be like not having first round picks during those years, just like what happened to the Canucks, when Gillis traded our away to get players to help our cup run........ I see this potential dilemma as a negative for the Canucks, and one they should plan for..........aka moving early to ensure more 17 year old elite picks prior to that happening, if and when it ever does. Was gonna reply earlier Jan, only to find out a game was starting(just when I woke up, Sun morn). Basically I feel we need one more 'bottom-feeder' yr, as painful/lousy as that seems. To compete with the Anaheims/Edms of the div, we'll need a deep, young cast of talent, that's basically rising together. Benning's forte appears to be at the draft table. To add another 7~10 good young prospects by June 2019(as per original post) is what the Dr orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted September 17, 2017 Author Share Posted September 17, 2017 14 hours ago, Gollumpus said: Or, is it still that attractive if we also know how these proposed deals might work out?: - Tanev returns a 31st OA pick (who perhaps becomes a 3rd or 4th liner in the NHL, or maybe a 6/7 d-man) and a prospect (or two) who aren't really any better (or turn out to be worse) than anything the team already has, and they become borderline NHL players. Tanev plays several more years as one of the best defensive d-men in the NHL. - Granlund returns a 30th OA pick (who perhaps becomes a 3rd or 4th liner in the NHL, or maybe a 6/7 d-man) , while he and the guy taken with the 3rd round pick become stars for their new team. - Edler returns a 31st OA pick (who perhaps becomes a 3rd or 4th liner in the NHL) and a prospect or two who aren't really any better, or turn out to be worse, than anything the team already has, and they become borderline NHL players. However, the Hockey Gods could change that Edler 31 OA to a 1st OA if anyone can provide a reasonable and realistic a reason or two why Edler elects to waive his NTC...? regards, G. G, I was contemplating this variable you mention, but already some complained(& knew they would!) I painted too detailed a pic(therefore I simply omitted, what I prob shoulda' added). In my mind I was picturing picks between #15 ~ perhaps # 25, & maybe one team even falling behind the PO-line. With Jimbo's aptitude in this dept, I'm not even sure it'd be worth worrying over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 9, 2018 Author Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 2017年9月16日 at 3:17 PM, Nuxfanabroad said: If the Hockey Gawds offered this up today..would you accept it? Non-negotiable..must accept all points: - Canucks finish 29th OA(ensuring good shot at lotto). Hung in(close to wildcard), but finally in Feb injuries wore us down(similar to 2 of Willie's yrs) - 450+ man games lost to injury!!! Nothing of the brutal sort..worst injuries costing guys 6~8 wks(complete recovery in all cases) - All NHL skaters on team play to their expected level. No one really regresses. Just too many injuries. Rodin, McEneny & Boeser stick, performing admirably all yr. - Utica advances to Finals(but lose in 7). Virt has a great season..almost PPG pace. Also 15 very good games with big team(they need him for Utica PO's though) - We trade Tanev(2018 1st & 2 good prospects); Edler(2019 1st & good prospect); Granlund & 3rd for 2018 1st; 2 of our new FA's for a 2nd & 3rd. Deals between Dec~Feb... we accumulate: 2018: 2 extra 1st's 2019: extra 1st & 2nd R picks + 3 more good(v young) prospects ************************************: ALL CDN FINAL! ************************************ Edm & Ott(to Bettman's chagrin) for all the marbles. Semis were Edm vs Winn, & Ott vs MTL(again, driving Bettman to drink; unlikely 5 teams make it from Atlantic) Would you accept this today..Yes or No? Had to bump this, for laughs. I had Rodin & McEneny with breakthrough yrs! :^( Virt would've been a farmer, almost all yr. In retrospect, might've been better? I'm sure almost everyone would accept 2 extra 1st's this spring..guess it's still possible(if we cleaned house)? Did have the Canucks at #29 OA, & we're 1 pt away. But Edm, Mtl & OTT in the final-4?! This might be tough to expect, about now. Winn & TO(Eegads) would fulfill the all-Cdn final. Begrudgingly, I would accept this(especially IF we landed the big Swede on D!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted February 9, 2018 Author Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 2017年9月17日 at 1:58 PM, janisahockeynut said: So getting back to the original post........I would do some version of the original post......... I really wonder what Benning's thoughts are going to be, if the kids outplay the veterans and the veterans aren't that bad........I say he keeps the kids on the farm until injuries hit, then platoons the kids in and figure what healthy vets he moves at the TDL It could be a really great tough decisions coming up..................... Pretty good call, JanIsa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 2017-09-15 at 11:17 PM, Nuxfanabroad said: If the Hockey Gawds offered this up today..would you accept it? Non-negotiable..must accept all points: - Canucks finish 29th OA(ensuring good shot at lotto). Hung in(close to wildcard), but finally in Feb injuries wore us down(similar to 2 of Willie's yrs) - 450+ man games lost to injury!!! Nothing of the brutal sort..worst injuries costing guys 6~8 wks(complete recovery in all cases) - All NHL skaters on team play to their expected level. No one really regresses. Just too many injuries. Rodin, McEneny & Boeser stick, performing admirably all yr. - Utica advances to Finals(but lose in 7). Virt has a great season..almost PPG pace. Also 15 very good games with big team(they need him for Utica PO's though) - We trade Tanev(2018 1st & 2 good prospects); Edler(2019 1st & good prospect); Granlund & 3rd for 2018 1st; 2 of our new FA's for a 2nd & 3rd. Deals between Dec~Feb... we accumulate: 2018: 2 extra 1st's 2019: extra 1st & 2nd R picks + 3 more good(v young) prospects ************************************: ALL CDN FINAL! ************************************ Edm & Ott(to Bettman's chagrin) for all the marbles. Semis were Edm vs Winn, & Ott vs MTL(again, driving Bettman to drink; unlikely 5 teams make it from Atlantic) Would you accept this today..Yes or No? Well you sure got the injuries and timing right! I would take the trades also...................and I guess Boeser will probably stick! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.