Expansion Draft a Blessing?

[kanucks25]

25 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

if all we lose is Lind thats great. 

 

But this whole "weaponize" thing, wth is that? how do you force another team to trade a guy to you? 

Well you can't force anything but there are players out there that teams can't protect.

 

I imagine said teams are willing to trade a player for an asset instead of losing them for nothing to Seattle (like Graves).

 

This is where we learn what our pro scouting is worth. We have limited cap space and there are a lot of middle-of-the-roster type players floating around. Let's see if Benning can hit on some buy-low candidates.

 

(Yes, I know there are some teams with no good players to lose and there are some teams with several good players that are exposed that aren't going to scramble to trade one because then they'll be down two but that's not the case for every team).

Edited July 16, 2021 by kanucks25

[Josepho]

Protecting Lind over acquiring someone (McCann seems to be the best player available) would be a massive mistake.

 

It's very unlikely at this point that Lind turns into a meaningful regular NHLer.

 

Same thing with protecting Myers/Juolevi over Marcus Pettersson.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Josepho

[DrJockitch]

1 minute ago, Josepho said:

Protecting Lind over acquiring someone (McCann seems to be the best player available) would be a massive mistake.

 

It's very unlikely at this point that Lind turns into a meaningful regular NHLer.

Improved dramatically in AHL and one of the positive points of this season along with Hoglander.

One of our few prospects ready to play a depth role.

He has been on a positive path since he was drafted.  Not all players come into the league at 18-19, most have to earn their way there and he has.

He is by far the best choice of the fringe protection candidates to protect. 

Not sure why you would think protecting a quality prospect would keep us from going after someone like McCann.

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, Josepho said:

It's very unlikely at this point that Lind turns into a meaningful regular NHLer.

Why not?

2017 draft was doing ok in his second year of pro; was then moved from wing to center and after a slow start has improved in his new role.

Calling his career potential at this point is very premature imo.

[Josepho]

7 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Improved dramatically in AHL and one of the positive points of this season along with Hoglander.

One of our few prospects ready to play a depth role.

He has been on a positive path since he was drafted.  Not all players come into the league at 18-19, most have to earn their way there and he has.

He is by far the best choice of the fringe protection candidates to protect. 

Not sure why you would think protecting a quality prospect would keep us from going after someone like McCann.

 

6 minutes ago, gurn said:

Why not?

2017 draft was doing ok in his second year of pro; was then moved from wing to center and after a slow start has improved in his new role.

Calling his career potential at this point is very premature imo.

He had a decently productive 8 games in Utica where he had some really good linemates. 

 

He still has massive issues skating and looked very out of place in his NHL games this season. If you aren't looking even close to an NHLer at this point, it's more than likely that you won't turn into one. I'm not "calling his career potential" out of nowhere. His development curve is extremely unspectacular and these guys usually don't turn into much more.

 

Lind is looking like our 7th protection spot. In my example I'd rather go after McCann (who Lind is unlikely to ever become as good as) for that 7th spot than Lind.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Josepho

[DrJockitch]

3 minutes ago, Josepho said:

 

He had a decently productive 8 games in Utica where he had some really good linemates. 

 

He still has massive issues skating and looked very out of place in his NHL games this season. If you aren't looking even close to an NHLer at this point, it's more than likely that you won't turn into one.

 

Lind is looking like our 7th protection spot. In my example I'd rather go after McCann (who Lind is unlikely to ever become as good as) for that 7th spot than Lind.

I think that is very short sighted and ignores what has happened at AHL level where he improved dramatically with every season, was one of their best players in 20 when he was shifted out of his natural position.

But hey he didn't score on a team that was decimated with injury, playing a tonne of players that had no business in the league and was coming off extended COVID break.  So, his entire during his entire 7 NHL career was not a marked success despite all those advantages.  Sounds like time to give up on him.  

[J-P]

6 minutes ago, Josepho said:

 

He had a decently productive 8 games in Utica where he had some really good linemates. 

 

He still has massive issues skating and looked very out of place in his NHL games this season. If you aren't looking even close to an NHLer at this point, it's more than likely that you won't turn into one. I'm not "calling his career potential" out of nowhere. His development curve is extremely unspectacular and these guys usually don't turn into much more.

 

Lind is looking like our 7th protection spot. In my example I'd rather go after McCann (who Lind is unlikely to ever become as good as) for that 7th spot than Lind.

IMO McCann is not someone I want on the team. Serviceable NHL player after a few years but nothing special and also has a history of reported character issues (too many to be just rumours). I'm sure Benning is even more firm on this point than me though ;-)

[Josepho]

3 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

I think that is very short sighted and ignores what has happened at AHL level where he improved dramatically with every season, was one of their best players in 20 when he was shifted out of his natural position.

But hey he didn't score on a team that was decimated with injury, playing a tonne of players that had no business in the league and was coming off extended COVID break.  So, his entire during his entire 7 NHL career was not a marked success despite all those advantages.  Sounds like time to give up on him.  

Most of the good NHL players come in and establish themselves as good AHL players immediately. It's not a particularly common for guys of Lind's track record to turn into much -- it's pretty much the same as Shinkaruk's.

 

It's not just that he couldn't score, it's that he looked completely lost in terms of skating in the league. A guy like Lockwood didn't score while he was here but I didn't feel he looked nearly as out of place as Lind did. 

 

I don't think it's "giving up on him". Giving up on Lind would be trading him for future considerations. But, at this point, we have to seriously consider acquiring an actual NHL player for that protection spot if possible instead of protecting someone based on what you hope for him to be instead of what is likely.

[Josepho]

18 minutes ago, J-P said:

IMO McCann is not someone I want on the team. Serviceable NHL player after a few years but nothing special and also has a history of reported character issues (too many to be just rumours). I'm sure Benning is even more firm on this point than me though ;-)

His character issues are not being reported out of Florida/Pittsburgh, it seems to be a non-issue at this point.

[kanucks25]

27 minutes ago, J-P said:

IMO McCann is not someone I want on the team. Serviceable NHL player after a few years but nothing special and also has a history of reported character issues (too many to be just rumours). I'm sure Benning is even more firm on this point than me though ;-)

Character issues were "leaked" at the time of the trade... I wonder why.

 

Haven't heard much about them since.

 

And if there were, I think the bigger question is why we drafted two 1st rounders with character issues in one draft.

 

And "nothing special" is elite compared to the remaining options in our bottom 6.

 

FWIW we don't necessarily have to target McCann but should be targeting one forward and one D-man that are protection slot worthy in general.

Edited July 16, 2021 by kanucks25

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Character issues were "leaked" at the time of the trade... I wonder why.

 

Haven't heard much about them since.

 

And if there were, I think the bigger question is why we drafted two 1st rounders with character issues in one draft.

 

And "nothing special" is elite compared to the remaining options in our bottom 6.

 

FWIW we don't necessarily have to target McCann but should be targeting one forward and one D-man that are protection slot worthy in general.

You're talking like everything is predictable though. How do you know that it would have been known that McCann would have had character issues in the first place? It's kind of a non-starter of an argument given how little any of this is based on in the first place.

 

I don't know what the situation fully was with McCann, but it seems like a risk not really worth taking given how many other guys are out there that could fill a similar role.

[J-P]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You're talking like everything is predictable though. How do you know that it would have been known that McCann would have had character issues in the first place? It's kind of a non-starter of an argument given how little any of this is based on in the first place.

 

I don't know what the situation fully was with McCann, but it seems like a risk not really worth taking given how many other guys are out there that could fill a similar role.

Agree, well put, that was my point sort of.

[mll]

1 hour ago, spur1 said:

The problem with your scenario is that Seattle has to sign them in order to have them considered as a pick. 

They actually don’t.  They only have to take 20 players under contract and can take UFAs without signing them during the expansion window.  

[kanucks25]

13 minutes ago, The Lock said:

You're talking like everything is predictable though. How do you know that it would have been known that McCann would have had character issues in the first place? It's kind of a non-starter of an argument given how little any of this is based on in the first place.

 

I don't know what the situation fully was with McCann, but it seems like a risk not really worth taking given how many other guys are out there that could fill a similar role.

Is personality not something amateur scouts look at? Especially when it comes to 1st rounders as they are most/very likely to at the very least get a cup of coffee with your NHL team if not have a major impact for many years.

 

Regardless, like I said, it doesn't have to be McCann in particular, just hope we don't have another "protect Granlund" type situation.

Edited July 16, 2021 by kanucks25

[The Lock]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

Is personality not something amateur scouts look at? Especially when it comes to 1st rounders as they are most/very likely to at the very least get a cup of coffee with your NHL team if not have a major impact for many years.

 

Regardless, like I said, it doesn't have to be McCann, just hope we don't have another "protect Granlund" type situation.

Just because amateur scouts are looking at something doesn't make everything predictable. People act differently in interviews. People can also change, especially people going through their teens. Scouts can find some things, but it's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to find everything. It doesn't happen. It doesn't matter how much they're throwing the prospect under the petri dish. Everything is about the scout's best guess in the end and that's the best they can do realistically.

 

Anyway, I have nothing against trying for a player like McCann. I just wanted to get the point across that not everything's predictable especially when you're talking about the human brain.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Just because amateur scouts are looking at something doesn't make everything predictable. People act differently in interviews. People can also change, especially people going through their teens. Scouts can find some things, but it's completely unrealistic to expect them to be able to find everything. It doesn't happen. It doesn't matter how much they're throwing the prospect under the petri dish. Everything is about the scout's best guess in the end and that's the best they can do realistically.

 

Anyway, I have nothing against trying for a player like McCann. I just wanted to get the point across that not everything's predictable especially when you're talking about the human brain.

 

Also, IIRC, Jim was only hired a few weeks before that draft. Don't think he'd had time to completely revamp our scouting department yet.

[The Lock]

Just now, aGENT said:

 

Also, IIRC, Jim was only hired a few weeks before that draft. Don't think he'd had time to completely revamp our scouting department yet.

True. There's even the notion that Benning wasn't allowed to be on the floor during that time and that he actually wanted Pastrnak

[coolboarder]

Yes and no.  It depends on what Seattle wants.  If Seattle choose a right player then yes, it's a bad thing.  But if Seattle took a wrong player then it's a good thing.  The only thing it helps us is the cap hits that will be reduced by millions fi they choose wrong player, allowing us to sign for better depth player in the off-season. 

[The Lock]

In terms of whether this is a blessing with Seattle or not, I personally feel it's kind of an odd question, perhaps in line with asking if Wellwood's a man possessed. lol But I will say a couple of things:

 

1) Seattle will be a good team. It doesn't really matter who they pick from us. They will be good given they're given the same start that Vegas got.

2) If we improve, I think there's a good chance for the start of a healthy rivalry, which is what we want. Us getting into the playoffs and being a good team along with Seattle can only good for everyone.

[Fred65]

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Also, IIRC, Jim was only hired a few weeks before that draft. Don't think he'd had time to completely revamp our scouting department yet.

Jim Benning was certainly in a unique situation that first draft. He was primed by not just one scouting department but two. Not many GM's have that opportunity .... knowing what the opposition has going for it. He certainly seems "enthralled and knowledgable about Virtanen" which turned out to be completely wrong, but hey who's checking  

 

Canucks draft meeting: Jake Virtanen - All Access - YouTube

Edited July 16, 2021 by Fred65