Linus Karlsson | C

[Mustard Tiger]

35 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

How about Podkolzin?

We dont have enough in the farm to swap out for all the underwhelming talent with the big club lol

[Junkyard Dog]

28 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said:

We dont have enough in the farm to swap out for all the underwhelming talent with the big club lol

He's doing well there and youngsters Hog/Pod/Bone are struggling to perform with the tire fire.

 

IMO we might want to send the kids down so they don't forget what playing hockey is like. And so they actually get minutes. 

[Mustard Tiger]

7 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

He's doing well there and youngsters Hog/Pod/Bone are struggling to perform with the tire fire.

 

IMO we might want to send the kids down so they don't forget what playing hockey is like. And so they actually get minutes. 

We need to understand the value in development and stop pretending the vets are what Bruce and Co seem to think they are haha

[Ray_Cathode]

7 hours ago, Mustard Tiger said:

We need to understand the value in development and stop pretending the vets are what Bruce and Co seem to think they are haha

I agree that ownership/management disvalues long term development, but there is also the huge problem of all of the prospects we don’t have because we traded so many draft slots instead of accumulating them.

[stawns]

4 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

I agree that ownership/management disvalues long term development, but there is also the huge problem of all of the prospects we don’t have because we traded so many draft slots instead of accumulating them.

people put way too much importance on hoardinf draft picks, imo.  First two rounds, maybe, but after that the probability of them ever being NHL'ers is so low that they don't matter a whole lot

[Mustard Tiger]

42 minutes ago, stawns said:

people put way too much importance on hoardinf draft picks, imo.  First two rounds, maybe, but after that the probability of them ever being NHL'ers is so low that they don't matter a whole lot

Yeah stawns. Who needs elcs when you can just sign UFAs and trade picks for RFAs. We just witnessed both scenarios last night and you are STILL convinced the Canucks should keep adding lmao. Bro come on 

[Fred65]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

people put way too much importance on hoardinf draft picks, imo.  First two rounds, maybe, but after that the probability of them ever being NHL'ers is so low that they don't matter a whole lot

Absolutely !  No one is guarnatedd squat in the draft, evidence Virtanen ( Now playing in the Swiss D2 league and Juolevi back in EU. I believe success for first rounders is 65% and that number is made up mostly by the first 15 slots. After that it's around 1 in 5 for a lower ranker pick to make it to the NHL, 20%

[AnthonyG]

3 hours ago, Mustard Tiger said:

Yeah stawns. Who needs elcs when you can just sign UFAs and trade picks for RFAs. We just witnessed both scenarios last night and you are STILL convinced the Canucks should keep adding lmao. Bro come on 

I think what Stawns means by that is development>quantity

 

which is something I have been preaching… the reason why we are in the hole that we are is from an 8 year talent/development deficit prior to Jim Benning stepped in. When he drafted Virtanen and McCann he essentially needed to draft guys that are 8 years developed to make up for the last 8 years of drafting and same with 2015, we needed another highly developed draft pick to make an impact and not require years of development. Look at the cup winning teams the last 15 years they have SEVERAL players who developed for 2-4 years in the minors. Look at the 2010-11 team, we were able to develop guys like Kesler, Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Raymond, Rypien… we had a place for development because we had a team that had NHL roster players like the WCE, the Sedins, Ohlund, Salo, Sopel etc holding spots in the NHL. From 2005-2013 we had no one ready to or capable of taking over for the twins, which meant years of drafting PLUS development, which is what put us so far behind. Now that we have accumulated some NHL players and are still fairly young, we now have the time to develop guys in the minors.  We dont need to blow it up and rebuild, we just need to focus on development and begin injecting new youth into the lineup until we have a solid rotation of new youth coming in and aging players going out, year in and year out. Thats how we become contenders for a long time.

[Mustard Tiger]

56 minutes ago, AnthonyG said:

I think what Stawns means by that is development>quantity

 

which is something I have been preaching… the reason why we are in the hole that we are is from an 8 year talent/development deficit prior to Jim Benning stepped in. When he drafted Virtanen and McCann he essentially needed to draft guys that are 8 years developed to make up for the last 8 years of drafting and same with 2015, we needed another highly developed draft pick to make an impact and not require years of development. Look at the cup winning teams the last 15 years they have SEVERAL players who developed for 2-4 years in the minors. Look at the 2010-11 team, we were able to develop guys like Kesler, Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Raymond, Rypien… we had a place for development because we had a team that had NHL roster players like the WCE, the Sedins, Ohlund, Salo, Sopel etc holding spots in the NHL. From 2005-2013 we had no one ready to or capable of taking over for the twins, which meant years of drafting PLUS development, which is what put us so far behind. Now that we have accumulated some NHL players and are still fairly young, we now have the time to develop guys in the minors.  We dont need to blow it up and rebuild, we just need to focus on development and begin injecting new youth into the lineup until we have a solid rotation of new youth coming in and aging players going out, year in and year out. Thats how we become contenders for a long time.

Appreciate the effort but the other fella wants to change by changing nothing. Re sign everyone and pretend it will work itself out 

[stawns]

9 hours ago, Mustard Tiger said:

Yeah stawns. Who needs elcs when you can just sign UFAs and trade picks for RFAs. We just witnessed both scenarios last night and you are STILL convinced the Canucks should keep adding lmao. Bro come on 

1st rounders, sure.  2nd rounders, I guess.......beyond that, I'd probably rather focus on 20-22 year old already developing players who can step in play now or next season.  What good is loading up on mid to late rounds picks who will almost surely never even get a sniff of the NHL?  What's the point of that?

 

Then you use your cap space to sign UFA's to fill the gaps or weaponize it for trades

Edited November 11, 2022 by stawns

[aGENT]

31 minutes ago, stawns said:

1st rounders, sure.  2nd rounders, I guess.......beyond that, I'd probably rather focus on 20-22 year old already developing players who can step in play now or next season.  What good is loading up on mid to late rounds picks who will almost surely never even get a sniff of the NHL?  What's the point of that?

 

Then you use your cap space to sign UFA's to fill the gaps or weaponize it for trades

You can also use those "useless" draft picks to weaponize in trades as well  

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Ray_Cathode]

12 hours ago, stawns said:

people put way too much importance on hoardinf draft picks, imo.  First two rounds, maybe, but after that the probability of them ever being NHL'ers is so low that they don't matter a whole lot

You are utterly and completely wrong. The odds of a first round pick playing at least 200 games for a forward is 35%, the odds for a second round pick is 18%, for a third round pick is 17%, for a fourth round pick 8% for a fifth round pick 10%, and for a sixth rounder is 9%. The odds for D are better in the first round, but about the same afterwards. Goalies are about the same in the first round, but higher in the second, slightly lower later.

 

The odds of a second or third rounder are about half that of a first rounder - but it means that if you combine the odds of your second and third round picks, it is virtually the same as a first rounder. 
 

Here is my source: https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[stawns]

45 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

You are utterly and completely wrong. The odds of a first round pick playing at least 200 games for a forward is 35%, the odds for a second round pick is 18%, for a third round pick is 17%, for a fourth round pick 8% for a fifth round pick 10%, and for a sixth rounder is 9%. The odds for D are better in the first round, but about the same afterwards. Goalies are about the same in the first round, but higher in the second, slightly lower later.

 

The odds of a second or third rounder are about half that of a first rounder - but it means that if you combine the odds of your second and third round picks, it is virtually the same as a first rounder. 
 

Here is my source: https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

You think 17% are good odds?

[WeneedLumme]

10 hours ago, stawns said:

You think 17% are good odds?

Hey, apparently even 8% is good odds. And trading an asset with a 92% chance of not becoming a useful NHL player for a player who can actually help the team, is "throwing away draft picks".

[Ray_Cathode]

On 11/10/2022 at 9:09 PM, stawns said:

You think 17% are good odds?

Considering that first round odds are about 35% second and third round odds combined are about 35%. That gives a better than two thirds chance that you will pick up a player out of the first three rounds each year and about a 25% chance that you will pick up a player in the bottom four rounds that will play 200+ nhl games. Of course, you can opt for dead certainty and give up your first round pick and kill your cap management by picking up superannuated vets like OEL or worse an Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel and the like. 
 

As for odds, consider that there was only a one in a hundred million chance per ejaculation that you would be you, yet here you are.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[-Vintage Canuck-]