Drafts, trades, signings... Should be all about Defense

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think he dropped Tkachuk to 15 so you'd be so intrigued you'd pay for a subscription to The Athletic 

I can't take Pronman seriously enough to read his stuff if it were free.

[canucksuberalles]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:41 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

I’m a D-first type, wannabe builder. 

 

I'd even go as far as to sell a off Horvat to get both Swedish Dmen at the top of this year’s draft, if the Canucks were to win the lottery, which they will. 

 

Yup, the Canucks are going to win the lottery, folks. You read it here first. 

 

 

Umm, no and Hella NO.  I get the feels but Jesus man...

[oldnews]

25 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I am surprised he put BT so low, at 15, when my eye’s consensus from that page puts him at 4ish. 

 

I havent watched the kid beyond what I saw at the WJHC, but loved the game he brought. Personally, I’d take him at 2nd, if I was hunting a forward and had the pick. 

 

Should the Canucks take him or go with Boqvist if they were both there at 4? Or do you feel Zadina or Svechnikov would be a better pick? Those appear to be the 2-5 group behind Dahlin in most rankings so far, at least. 

 

This one would be a decision I couldn’t easily make. I think BT might be the next Shanny, but then Boqvist looks like he might be a Letang or Karlsson. The perfect winger for a slight, skilled Canucks forward core or a smallish offensive dynamo on D? I’d need a team to help me with that one. 

I agree.  It's hard to guess - and that's what we have to do with the limited amount of sample we realistically see.

Last year there weren't many sources for example that realized how good Pettersson was/would be.

To make the right decision would require being committed to it full time.

 

Outside the sources that most people look at as the most credible - BMac, etc - I prefer hockeyprospect.com

[canucksuberalles]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:58 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

Horvat is not untouchable. 

 

This sentiment is a testament to the worship of false idols in Vancouver.

I like the guy, he’s a super second line center, cut from the same cloth as a Rod Brind’Amour, but he’s not untouchable, especially to a roster like this one.

 

I’m not saying give him up, I’m saying he has a price and it might be worth looking at. 

I suppose since the trading of Gretzky,by that useless piece of skin Peter Pocklington, no one is really untouchable, sooooo...

 

But on this team he's as 'untouchable' as it gets.  And the optics, man , would be awful.

[189lb enforcers?]

7 minutes ago, canucksuberalles said:

I suppose since the trading of Gretzky,by that useless piece of skin Peter Pocklington, no one is really untouchable, sooooo...

 

But on this team he's as 'untouchable' as it gets.  And the optics, man , would be awful.

Empathy.

Not a fan of it. 

[189lb enforcers?]

18 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I agree.  It's hard to guess - and that's what we have to do with the limited amount of sample we realistically see.

Last year there weren't many sources for example that realized how good Pettersson was/would be.

To make the right decision would require being committed to it full time.

 

Outside the sources that most people look at as the most credible - BMac, etc - I prefer hockeyprospect.com

I follow things less every year. I read less, watch less, go less. 

 

I even gave up my season tickets I had for my WHL team. I am less attached to the changing game now. I barely recognize the sport, or even what I’ve seen of minor hockey. 

 

Becoming so detached has put me at a disadvantage for some of the voodoo /advanced stats stuff that I really don’t care to get the hang of. I am getting lazy and actually like this site for some of the resources other posters put in their posts. So, thanks for that. 

[JM_]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

I can't take Pronman seriously enough to read his stuff if it were free.

I could see Tkachuk falling a bit or rising up to #3 depending on what team needs are, but 15? oy.

 

I see this draft as the same as last years, we're going to get someone good at a position we need filled, D or F, it doesn't really matter we need both. Getting elite D will be a matter of pure luck so I'm not going to worry about it. 

[Phat Fingers]

On 2018-02-03 at 9:41 PM, 189lb enforcers? said:

I’m a D-first type, wannabe builder. 

 

I'd even go as far as to sell a off Horvat to get both Swedish Dmen at the top of this year’s draft, if the Canucks were to win the lottery, which they will. 

 

Yup, the Canucks are going to win the lottery, folks. You read it here first. 

 

 

One step forward two steps back. Give up our only true top six center in the organization for two d prospects. 

 

Would love to get a top defender, but giving away Horvat, maybe you are overreacting.  

[bloodycanuckleheads]

Our D isn't very good - but our goaltending is attrocious!  Start there.  Every game it seeems we are letting in the very first scoring-chance for the opposition.  It's deflating.  It puts us behind.  And, it even masks how bad we are as a team (NHL teams sit-back on leads, so when they have one against us after the first few minutes, we start to get all the shots from that point on, which means our stats/Corsi don't look nearly as bad as they should, which makes people think we're better than we are or at least not as horrible).

[Rabbit]

I don't say Bo is untouchable, but I disagree to trade him this year unless we get a very good reward of D. If so, we still need to find a replacement of #1C & a leader.

 

Draft: I do not agree to limit to the position we need in the first round, we should pick the best available for the Canucks' good future. For the 2nd round of after, I okay tor the focus of D positions even we might need more time for the development.

To recover the urgency need of D, we can:

Convict Tryamkin coming back to Canucks;

Trade or pick in UFA.

 

If OJ turns out a No.1 D., with coming back of Tryamkin, plus Stecher continuous his progress and Keeps Guddy, Beige, MDZ, adding one or two traded good D, there will not be too bad.

I am little worry of our Goalies, it seems the current Goalies are not the No.1 Goalie. If Demko could not play NHL level in next year, what is Benning's plan?

 

If Sedins retire after end of this season, the pressure of their giveaways adding to D group and Goalie will be reduced.

[Pete M]

Canucks should be sellers at the TDL, get picks or prospects with upside, and pick the BPA...if they are sellers, they may finish 3rd, 4th and 5th from last...3rd or less would be good for the rebuild because they would pick top 5 at least.

 

Last year, Colorado finished last and got screwed with the draft lottery, but got to pick again at 31...if Canucks pick 33 or 34, they should focus on a 'D' pick, after taking the BPA with their 1st pick (just like Colorado did at 31 and got Timmins)...who might be better than Makar, who they took 4th overall.

 

Unless, like last year, there was a forward of the caliber like Lind available that forces the Canucks to take the BPA with their second pick.

 

This draft will be interesting to say the least and the outcome of the Sedins will make things interesting as well, if they decide to retire...which they should.

[oldnews]

11 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I follow things less every year. I read less, watch less, go less. 

 

I even gave up my season tickets I had for my WHL team. I am less attached to the changing game now. I barely recognize the sport, or even what I’ve seen of minor hockey. 

 

Becoming so detached has put me at a disadvantage for some of the voodoo /advanced stats stuff that I really don’t care to get the hang of. I am getting lazy and actually like this site for some of the resources other posters put in their posts. So, thanks for that. 

I don't mind the changes in the game so much as I dislike the assumptions that any player with size or grit will be unable to compete in the 'new' NHL.  I think that is grossly overstated on a regular basis.

Take for example Hrudey parroting the idea that Gudbranson is a throwback that may have fit a decade ago, but questions whether players like him have value today's NHL.  That is oversimplified to the state of absurd imo  - as is the idea that Larsson in Edmonton was a horrible return, or a gamut of other 'stories' about the emerging NHL, or 'advanced stats' or the speed/skill that is allegedly phasing size, grit etc out of the game.  'Analysts' sway back and forth between reductions.  It's as reductive as the swings about how to build a 'true' winner.  Size, grit, shutdown possession hockey of the Kings or Bruins vs the speed, sklill, mobility of the Hawks or Pens.  Obviously either approach can win, depending on how well those approaches are executed as well as a whole, irreducible list of other variables.  But the underlying 'truth' remains - neither oversimplified approach is the answer - and the game isn't just trending in one dramatic direction.   Big, physical guys that can skate and play will never be obsolete in the game.

 

That said, I don't mind the trend towards fourth lines that can skate, defend, be rolled / deepening the speed and skill in lineups.  First, I think it makes for more entertaining hockey played at a higher pace and generally elevated level of skill, - but I also think the development of the game worldwide makes a greater depth of players available - even at the WHL level for example, where the product is pretty impressive.  I personally am less willing to spend my money on Bettman/Aquilini NHL products than I am on junior WHL hockey - although I think players at that level are not really compensated to the extent they should be - given the revenues generated.

 

 

'Voodoo/advanced' stats are generally nowhere near as determinant as some 'analysts' suggest - they're overdressed - and the 'analysis' is ofter ironically very simplistic, with borderline negative value.  Corsi is essentially the plus/minus of shot attempts.   'Advanced stats' are not necessarily as complicated as they can appear, or as informative - at least not one or two metrics/variables alone (as a whole lot of 'analysts' use them) - and the 'science' in general is fairly under-developed.  Analytics are only as good as the analyst, and I don't think there are many good, readily available sources tbh, unless people dig in and look themselves, in which case it's not as intimidating - and doesn't take as much time - as it appears.  Basic critical skills - the ability to read and interpret statistics - is not a very common interest for good reason - it can be really boring - and suck away at the vitality of the game.  Some utility within limits - but risks making a nerd-snore-a-thon of hockey discussion - and ironically, even within that nerd landscape, the analytics tend to be highly over-rated in their utility.   For me - it's just goal, shot metrics, sometimes people manage to look at deployment - zone starts/quality of competition - to try to glimpse the general context a player is deployed in, of course effecting their metrics fairly significantly.  The fact that elementary point is often missed altogether makes most of it ironically unadvanced.

 

[Nucker 67]

I would much rather have a top 5 draft pick this year than squeak into the playoffs and get hammered. The losses don't bother me too much these days, as long as Boeser continues his great play.

 

I'd like Benning to trade some vets at the TDL, and maybe even acquire a second 1st rounder. Say picks #5 and #20 (Zadina and Wilde?)

 

 

[mikeyman109]

As long as they have lottery picks the smartest strategy is to take d men in the Draft unless a forward that you just cant walk away from drops to your pick slot. Forwards can be picked up in Free agency, drafted and developed or traded for but First pairing defensemen come from one place only and that is the Draft.I wouldn't be upset if the Canucks took a Defense man with every pick this draft.If we cant get Dahlin then I would prefer we draft Bode Wilde or Evan Bouchard. Big defensemen who can skate( look at Tampa) and have cannons from the point. See Salo or Macinnis. Undersized players get hurt and worn down in the playoffs. Bigger D men survive.

[IBatch]

On 03/02/2018 at 9:40 PM, Alflives said:

Bo is one of the special players in the league who play way better than their contract.  He’s more valuable, considering his cap hit, than many guys who get paid more.

Bobby Ryan in Ottawa, scraping to get his thirty points when he's not injured, all for the AVV of 7 million...and it's been going on for year's...and he's in his prime.  Makes L.E. look like Horvat in comparison.  Still don't like L.E.s contract either, it's bad.

[IBatch]

9 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Our D isn't very good - but our goaltending is attrocious!  Start there.  Every game it seeems we are letting in the very first scoring-chance for the opposition.  It's deflating.  It puts us behind.  And, it even masks how bad we are as a team (NHL teams sit-back on leads, so when they have one against us after the first few minutes, we start to get all the shots from that point on, which means our stats/Corsi don't look nearly as bad as they should, which makes people think we're better than we are or at least not as horrible).

THAT is the legacy Markstrom is creating.  I swear he thinks he's Dryden and just let's the first one in to get the team involved.  Ok that's a bad comparison, other than he's more.of a.giraffe.

 

At least he got the shutout monkey off his back, thats a ridiculous record in the modern era of Uber sized goalies that when they crouch their heads still are way above the net, and when they stand up they look like kids nets, barely reaching their midsections.   

 

Demko.  Please be better.