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

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

Why are a lot of people complaining about Fabian Lysell's size but not William Eklund's even though they're identical in size (5'10" and 172 lbs) and Lysell's actually younger by 3 months?

Difference in body type, is what I have gathered. Both are very good skaters, some of the best skaters in the draft. Both need to add size and muscle, and will as they age. Eklund is stacked in the low body though. Big strong legs lead to a solid foundation. Lysell needs to gain strength in both his upper, and lower body. In my experience working with athletes at that age, genetics are playing a huge role in their physical attributes. If at their age you have tree trunks for legs, it's likely because one of your parents do as well. All in all I think they both need to gain muscle mass to have effective careers, I just think Eklunds foundations (litterally) is much stronger.

 

Full transparency though, I'm super bias because Eklund is my 2nd favorite player of this draft.

Edited by shayster007
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I do get what you mean about small sample size with Rathbone, but it is really not. They have alot of film on his play at Harvard, pretty much like they have alot of film on Schneider in his time as a amateur, and they have extra game film and stats of Rathbone during his time on the Canucks and Utica, if anything it's Schneider that is in question

 

Personally, all these guys that want us to include Rathbone in trades are just plain silly, as he has shown above average ability when playing in the NHL, a much more rounded Dman than Hughes, IMO.....very much a Doug Lidster type, to me, and one, you just don't give away.

I would be Shocked if a team offered a 1st for Rathbone, even if they did I think we should just keep him for now and see what he can do. He is near NHL ready now vs a pick who is a couple years away. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Whos giving away? Us receiving schneider and the rangers first rounder seems like good value  

Maybe I over value Rathbone, but it seems to me with Juolevi being more than a little suspect that Rathbone is our 2nd best LHD prospect/young LHD, I would almost go as far to say that IMO, Rathbone has the potential to be a better, more rounded Dman than Hughes. I have read and watched rathbone for the past 3 years, and when scouts and coaches have compared him to Fox, and John Marino, both of who played with Rathbone at Harvard, and are both now, well entrenched in the NHL, coaches have said he hold his own to them. (That is lofty comments from them of Rathbones abilities). I do not think you give away that potential.

 

So, basically I am the glass is half full on Rathbone, and "IF" he develops as I expect, he will have a value of a #2/3 Dman, which has a value of an undeveloped Schneider and the 15th OA......yes, I see him as a potential blue chip equivalent.

 

Just re-reading your comment...............if what you are saying is 

 

1) Rathbone for Schneider and NYR's 15th OA...................that is not happening....Rangers value Schneider much higher than that

 

2) Rathbone and our 9th OA for Schneider and their 15th OA.........closer to being equal, but IMO, we give a little too much

 

Also, note that the Rangers are looking for a Veteran for their young group of Dmen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Maybe I over value Rathbone, but it seems to me with Juolevi being more than a little suspect that Rathbone is our 2nd best LHD prospect/young LHD, I would almost go as far to say that IMO, Rathbone has the potential to be a better, more rounded Dman than Hughes. I have read and watched rathbone for the past 3 years, and when scouts and coaches have compared him to Fox, and John Marino, both of who played with Rathbone at Harvard, and are both now, well entrenched in the NHL, coaches have said he hold his own to them. (That is lofty comments from them of Rathbones abilities). I do not think you give away that potential.

 

So, basically I am the glass is half full on Rathbone, and "IF" he develops as I expect, he will have a value of a #2/3 Dman, which has a value of an undeveloped Schneider and the 15th OA......yes, I see him as a potential blue chip equivalent.

 

Just re-reading your comment...............if what you are saying is 

 

1) Rathbone for Schneider and NYR's 15th OA...................that is not happening....Rangers value Schneider much higher than that

 

2) Rathbone and our 9th OA for Schneider and their 15th OA.........closer to being equal, but IMO, we give a little too much

 

Also, note that the Rangers are looking for a Veteran for their young group of Dmen

Number 2 i was talking about yes lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Number 2 i was talking about yes lol

Ahhhhhh

 

I guess, I just have a higher value on Rathbone

 

I would do Schneider + NYR 2nd for Vancouver's 2021-1st  and Schmidt

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ahhhhhh

 

I guess, I just have a higher value on Rathbone

 

I would do Schneider + NYR 2nd for Vancouver's 2021-1st  and Myers

Absolutely id do that. The rangers are looking for a LHD tho so they would have zero interest in myers. They are pretty loaded on that right side even if they trade schneider.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a feeling McT, Guenther and Wallstedt will go before #9. I can see Hughes or Eklund shockingly being available at #9 though.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Absolutely id do that. The rangers are looking for a LHD tho so they would have zero interest in myers. They are pretty loaded on that right side even if they trade schneider.  

LOL....I actually corrected that after I looked at it

 

insert Schmidt for Myers...plz

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Got a feeling McT, Guenther and Wallstedt will go before #9. I can see Hughes or Eklund shockingly being available at #9 though.    

LMAO I would be dancing up and down if that happened. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ahhhhhh

 

I guess, I just have a higher value on Rathbone

 

I would do Schneider + NYR 2nd for Vancouver's 2021-1st  and Schmidt

Yuck. Get outta here with that nonsense. I looked into it a little, and found a few possible options for a D partner for Hughes that might fit what I think he needs in a partner. Not sure how available any of them might be, but MacKenzie Weegar, Philippe Myers, Damon Severson, Henri Jokiharju, Dante Fabbro, Ethan Bear.

 

Weegar and Severson would be most ideal for the short-term; they're not exactly old, but currently in their primes. Jokiharju would be the dream scenario, but good luck getting him out of Buffalo, and probably same goes for Bear. Fabbro seems gettable, but he's still young and needs some development himself; maybe not the answer for Hughes right now, but I think he could be in a couple years. And then Myers is somewhere in between everything, he's not the perfect fit, but fairly young, solid and probably pretty attainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Got a feeling McT, Guenther and Wallstedt will go before #9. I can see Hughes or Eklund shockingly being available at #9 though.    

For that to happen, we need to start spreading some bad rumours about both those guys and really start promoting the other guys. :P Let me start:

  • There is an over-abundance  of good, proven LHD already in the NHL. Why take a risk on another one? Just draft based on needs.
  • Do you really think a short (5'10") and slight (172 lbs) C can play 1C in the NHL?
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Got a feeling McT, Guenther and Wallstedt will go before #9. I can see Hughes or Eklund shockingly being available at #9 though.    

I cannot see Eklund being there. Hughes maybe due to his foot injury and long recovery cutting into his development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

Yuck. Get outta here with that nonsense. I looked into it a little, and found a few possible options for a D partner for Hughes that might fit what I think he needs in a partner. Not sure how available any of them might be, but MacKenzie Weegar, Philippe Myers, Damon Severson, Henri Jokiharju, Dante Fabbro, Ethan Bear.

 

Weegar and Severson would be most ideal for the short-term; they're not exactly old, but currently in their primes. Jokiharju would be the dream scenario, but good luck getting him out of Buffalo, and probably same goes for Bear. Fabbro seems gettable, but he's still young and needs some development himself; maybe not the answer for Hughes right now, but I think he could be in a couple years. And then Myers is somewhere in between everything, he's not the perfect fit, but fairly young, solid and probably pretty attainable.

LOL......now you are talking like a HF Boarder! LOL

 

But seriously, I am not sold on anyone player, and my MO, is to make a statement to see if I can draw out some opinions we can chew on.......I respect your opinion, and must say, I am not sold on any one hockey player, more than looking for options.

 

Sometimes, I even draw out myself, in that I come up with something I am happy with myself.............in this case it was a comment about how I would handle this summer if I was Benning......

 

To repeat myself, I would use this years picks to fill in out RHD, and then I use 2022 and 2023 picks, and assets to fill in the remaining holes, what ever they are on the big club.

 

As some people on here have pointed out, Miller and Horvat are not getting younger, and are approaching UFA years.......

 

Back to the draft for a second. I remember a year or 2 ago, when experts were looking at this draft and saying it was going to be Dman heavy, with good prospects going late into the second and early 3rd. I agree with this, and although not a Great draft, I still think it will be a decent draft.

 

My motto for this draft is, take all available means to get Clarke and at least 1 more RHD in the second round. IMO, Clarke goes around 4 or 5, so you have to get out ahead of that, so to speak.

 

Now, if we can't, and this is where I draw on your services and opinions..........

 

I would like one of ......Ceulemans or Morrow later in the first

and

one of ...........Heimosalmi, Schmidt, Mailloux or Bar in the 2nd

 

So, yes, maybe we trade down in the first, after exhausting our original target "Clarke"

But my question to you is.............

 

What order do you put the rest of those guys? And did I miss a RHD that maybe is just as good? (I do recall a couple of others, but they seem to appear in some rankings and not in others)

 

Hey, and If I don't always say so, thanks for the dialogue, if is a learning experience and good for everybody, to exchange views........

 

PS.......polite?  Ummm, Sorry! (joke)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

For that to happen, we need to start spreading some bad rumours about both those guys and really start promoting the other guys. :P Let me start:

  • There is an over-abundance  of good, proven LHD already in the NHL. Why take a risk on another one? Just draft based on needs.
  • Do you really think a short (5'10") and slight (172 lbs) C can play 1C in the NHL?

Might as well pretend his name is Luke Smith, he's not like those Hughes bros :P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

For that to happen, we need to start spreading some bad rumours about both those guys and really start promoting the other guys. :P Let me start:

  • There is an over-abundance  of good, proven LHD already in the NHL. Why take a risk on another one? Just draft based on needs.
  • Do you really think a short (5'10") and slight (172 lbs) C can play 1C in the NHL?

I heard Mason McTavish is related to Seth Rogen. And William Eklund doesn't know how to read. Weird, right?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is saying these players are going early, not in order:

 

1. Powers

2. Beniers

3. Clarke

4. Eklund

5. Mctavish 

 

with that reasoning we will get one of 

Guenther

Edvinsson 

Hughes 

Johnson 

Lucas

 

leaving Detroit Columbus La

 

 

Detroit= Edvinsson ( most potential, + position based

Columbus=Johnson ( going for skill )

LA= Hughes ( defensive prospect they need ) 

 

Van = Guenther or trade down 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Off_The_Schneid! said:

Everyone is saying these players are going early, not in order:

 

1. Powers

2. Beniers

3. Clarke

4. Eklund

5. Mctavish 

 

with that reasoning we will get one of 

Guenther

Edvinsson 

Hughes 

Johnson 

Lucas

 

leaving Detroit Columbus La

 

 

Detroit= Edvinsson ( most potential, + position based

Columbus=Johnson ( going for skill )

LA= Hughes ( defensive prospect they need ) 

 

Van = Guenther or trade down 

 

 

 

 

 

Trade down, or take Lambos or Ceulemans.  Not too much of a stretch for either.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Trade down, or take Lambos or Ceulemans.  Not too much of a stretch for either.  

I keep getting a Dougie Hamilton vibe off of Ceulemans for some reason

 

 

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

LOL......now you are talking like a HF Boarder! LOL

 

But seriously, I am not sold on anyone player, and my MO, is to make a statement to see if I can draw out some opinions we can chew on.......I respect your opinion, and must say, I am not sold on any one hockey player, more than looking for options.

 

Sometimes, I even draw out myself, in that I come up with something I am happy with myself.............in this case it was a comment about how I would handle this summer if I was Benning......

 

To repeat myself, I would use this years picks to fill in out RHD, and then I use 2022 and 2023 picks, and assets to fill in the remaining holes, what ever they are on the big club.

 

As some people on here have pointed out, Miller and Horvat are not getting younger, and are approaching UFA years.......

 

Back to the draft for a second. I remember a year or 2 ago, when experts were looking at this draft and saying it was going to be Dman heavy, with good prospects going late into the second and early 3rd. I agree with this, and although not a Great draft, I still think it will be a decent draft.

 

My motto for this draft is, take all available means to get Clarke and at least 1 more RHD in the second round. IMO, Clarke goes around 4 or 5, so you have to get out ahead of that, so to speak.

 

Now, if we can't, and this is where I draw on your services and opinions..........

 

I would like one of ......Ceulemans or Morrow later in the first

and

one of ...........Heimosalmi, Schmidt, Mailloux or Bar in the 2nd

 

So, yes, maybe we trade down in the first, after exhausting our original target "Clarke"

But my question to you is.............

 

What order do you put the rest of those guys? And did I miss a RHD that maybe is just as good? (I do recall a couple of others, but they seem to appear in some rankings and not in others)

 

Hey, and If I don't always say so, thanks for the dialogue, if is a learning experience and good for everybody, to exchange views........

 

PS.......polite?  Ummm, Sorry! (joke)

If we move up in the draft to take clarke then there is absolutely no reason to have miller and horvat on the team. We can get a boatload of picks for this year and next. This would absolutely show the players and city we are not trying to get better now but better in the future. We cant be just wasting prime years of miller and horvat on a team that is multiple years away from being competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

Why are a lot of people complaining about Fabian Lysell's size but not William Eklund's even though they're identical in size (5'10" and 172 lbs) and Lysell's actually younger by 3 months?

I think it’s more overlooked because Eklund projects to stick at the center position. We’re loaded for wingers so to select an undersized one when we are starting to look small in the top 6 as is. However with Eklund to position flex and a little bit higher end skill I feel is harder to pass up. I like Lysell and think he’s a great prospect will become a top 6 winger but Eklund could become a more important top 6 Center and draws comparisons in the likes of Backstrom and Zetterberg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...