Sbriggs Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said: I stand corrected I guess although I would argue Cory was already elite and the only reason we traded him was that we had another elite goalie. Either way I'm wrong, lol. If you feel that would work in this situation then I would say go ahead. To me it seems like a complete waste of a pick to store it as a trade chip, especially in our situation. We're not exactly in the casual wait and see period. To be honest, even getting a Marc Andre Fleury out of it doesn't excite me. If we do I guess we can trade him in 10 years for a ninth overall and then hopefully Bo's kid grows up and we draft him. Seems counter intuitive to me but what do I know. We also have the hindsight to know that Bo is a homerun! Ya, I'm not saying I would pick a goalie with our pick, I was just pointing out that top goalie prospect or back ups that are ready for #1 status like Demko was last year are valuable and can be traded for significant return 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfgang Durst Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Alflives said: I can see using our top pick to draft Walkstadt providing we have a deal in place where DiPietro is moving for a young top D man. 1. The correct name is Wallstedt not Walkstadt. 2. DiPietro for a young top D man maybe in another universe but not the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp3nny Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 7 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said: I stand corrected I guess although I would argue Cory was already elite and the only reason we traded him was that we had another elite goalie. Either way I'm wrong, lol. If you feel that would work in this situation then I would say go ahead. To me it seems like a complete waste of a pick to store it as a trade chip, especially in our situation. We're not exactly in the casual wait and see period. To be honest, even getting a Marc Andre Fleury out of it doesn't excite me. If we do I guess we can trade him in 10 years for a ninth overall and then hopefully Bo's kid grows up and we draft him. Seems counter intuitive to me but what do I know. We also have the hindsight to know that Bo is a homerun! I tend to agree with you. Goaltending is such a difficult position between the team aspect, mental toughness, and potential consistency issues. The example of Schneider is a good one. When we traded him, he was viewed as elite. After years of marinating and learning behind Luongo, one of the greatest goalies of all time, he had somewhat stolen the starting gig. Then we trade him for a top 10 pick, good value, but nothing spectacular as a return. Yes, in hindsight like you say, Horvat has been a wonderful addition for us. But look what happened to Schneider. NJ got three really good seasons out of him, and then his play dropped off, and he never posted anything but average numbers for them. I think injuries played their part in his decline, as well as a drop off in the team NJ was icing, but an elite goalie should be able to make any team competitive in my mind, just as an elite forward can. For the most part, the truly elite goalies over the past few years are basically viewed as untouchable. Vasilevsky, Hellebyuck, Rinne, Price etc. Other than that though, we've seen some really good goalies get moved around quite a bit, usually because of consistency issues. Look at Dubnyk, Bishop, Varlamov, Lehner etc. All of them have played on multiple teams now, and all of them have posted elite numbers, but also average numbers. Because of this, they will never return their elite value in a trade as we have seen. If a team truly believes the goalie will be elite, to the tune of top 5 in the league, I can get behind picking them. But if you have any inkling of doubt, your probably better off choosing a skater that has more of an opportunity to provide value, as the field of opportunity is much greater. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 12 minutes ago, Wolfgang Durst said: 1. The correct name is Wallstedt not Walkstadt. 2. DiPietro for a young top D man maybe in another universe but not the NHL. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 49 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said: https://www.chatsports.com/calgary-flames/a/source/burke-flames-halted-trade-talks-on-ristolainen-based-on-analytics-15700885 This is just the most glaring example but we're seeing all over the NHL the past couple years how dead seriously teams are taking anaytics. There was a good article last year about how big a factor they have become in contract negotiations even. I competely agree that C and D are more valuable, if all things equal. But I don't think all things are equal here, at least not regarding Eklund vs. Beniers. I completely understand where people are coming from who still have him ranked 2nd. He put himself right in the middle of the conversation with his U20s performance. , where he showed the ability to read and react in tight spaces and the dynamic skating to be a gamebreaker at the level. But when he went back to NCAA against much older players and closer scrutiny that comes with top two pick consideration, his lack of high-end technical skills have stood out. I've seen him blow a tire trying to cut back on defenders in the corner on multiple occasions, or trying to shift his feet to deke defenders one on one, and his stickhandling just isn't nearly tight enough to keep up with his ability to process the game at high speeds. He has all the hockey sense, compete, tenacity, defensive commitment, etc. to ensure that he'll be a good NHL player, but the offensive upside is a big question mark. Eklund, on the other hand, is one of the best I've ever seen at this age at manipulating the corners. With his lower body strength, balance, edgework and ability to be deceptive, he is already twisting pro defenders in the SHL into pretzels on a regular basis. Such an important skill in the NHL. His creativity and deceptiveness carrying the puck into the offensive zone are also second to none in this draft. Very few weaknesses with the player, and there is some room to question his offensive upside since he isn't a guy who likes to attack the inside much, but it's not unreasonable to think he could be a regular 75 or 80 point guy with the potential for 90 or 100 points in the right situation. Nice, I appreciate that. I admit I have seen next to nothing on Eklund so I'm just basing it on other's people's opinions, stats, and a couple vids. If I trusted you and I'm not saying I don't I would take him ahead of Beniers but would a couple teams bereft of talent pass on a C and D? I guess if people really believe they know better than everyone else they'll go with their gut, but I really wonder if rationalizing position over BPA comes into effect here. I think you have to look at every pick in isolation. Analytics are a tool but I just have a hard time believing teams base their picks off of it. Have you ever seen an all-star analytics team? If you haven't they've mocked it up and they absolutely suck as compared to just picking good players based on how good you think they are by watching them. If you know hockey analytics reassures what you already know or points out some fallacies in your logic. Edited July 3, 2021 by Gawdzukes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post hammertime Posted July 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted July 3, 2021 47 minutes ago, Sbriggs said: Didn't we trade Cory Schneider for 9th OA which turned into Bo? I would say thats trading a goalie who was supposed to be elite for something worthwhile. So draft a goalie 9OA so that one day 3 years from now after developing him you could trade him for 9OA. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, hammertime said: So draft a goalie 9OA so that one day 3 years from now after developing him you could trade him for 9OA. Thats not what Im saying at all, first of all I said I would NOT use our top 10 pick for a goalie, all I was doing was pointing out that there is value in a elite back up or prospect goalie and used that trade as an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 12 hours ago, HighOnHockey said: Well, I said for some time before the lottery that if a team with a heavy European scouting presence (particularly CBJ or DET) won the lottery, there would be a pretty good chance of Eklund going first. Buffalo is much less likely (I'd give it less than 25%), but I'm curious what the analytics say about Power, because as the number two guy, if Nightingale has reservations, they would have to at least seriously consider other options. And yes, in my opinion if the unlikely happened and Power were to slip, Eklund would be the most realistic option to go first overall. If he hadn't missed U18s and U20s I believe he would be the consensus number two by now. ya and I saw something saying Eklund is Buffalos top ranked forward in the draft. So going 1 or 2 for him shouldn’t be a shock. I’m feeling like Eklund will go in the top 4 now guaranteed. If Buffalo or Seattle doesn’t take Eklund I think Anaheim or NJD will for sure. And if Eklund gone before the NJD pick I think they take Luke Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 Definitely Gone by #9? Power Beniers Eklund Clarke McTavish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzipunch Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 Id take corson ceulemans at 9 i dont care hes predicted to go in the 20s. If we could trade back a few spots im good with that as well but i really like this kid. https://lastwordonsports.com/hockey/2021/05/27/corson-ceulemans-scouting-report/ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said: Definitely Gone by #9? Power Beniers Eklund Clarke McTavish All of those except for McTavish. He is likely gone but not as sure of it as the other four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said: Id take corson ceulemans at 9 i dont care hes predicted to go in the 20s. If we could trade back a few spots im good with that as well but i really like this kid. https://lastwordonsports.com/hockey/2021/05/27/corson-ceulemans-scouting-report/ Cuelemans at 9 and Morrow at 41 (although I think he’s gone top 25) would be fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzipunch Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: Cuelemans at 9 and Morrow at 41 (although I think he’s gone top 25) would be fantastic. Extremely talented and had a very good U18 playing in all situations (was trusted on the PK over Clarke, for example). Great character. Projects as a Charlie McAvoy+ for me. Roman Schmidt at 41 im okay with future top 4 Quinn-Cuelemans Rathbone-Roman Schmidt yes please. Tons of talent and size 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said: Extremely talented and had a very good U18 playing in all situations (was trusted on the PK over Clarke, for example). Great character. Projects as a Charlie McAvoy+ for me. Roman Schmidt at 41 im okay with future top 4 Quinn-Cuelemans Rathbone-Roman Schmidt yes please. Tons of talent and size I like Cuelemans’ aggressiveness. He played that U18s with some bite. He should almost certainly be there for us at 9. If the draft falls as expected, and we have only Johnson left from the top group, then I'm hoping we do reach a bit for Ceulemans instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 I'd rather have Lambos than Ceulemans, if I were to choose. Do the Canucks take a Forward or D with the #9? I would love the first 2 picks to be something like: #9 - McTavish #40 - Morrow They need higher end talent at C and D in the prospect pool and these two guys would certainly help. Sean Behrens is another smaller Dman, but he's going to be real good. High end talent, but his size might scare some GMs. He'd be a steal at #40. But, with already having Quinn Hughes (and Rathbone), he might be redundant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzipunch Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said: I'd rather have Lambos than Ceulemans, if I were to choose. Do the Canucks take a Forward or D with the #9? I would love the first 2 picks to be something like: #9 - McTavish #40 - Morrow They need higher end talent at C and D in the prospect pool and these two guys would certainly help. Sean Behrens is another smaller Dman, but he's going to be real good. High end talent, but his size might scare some GMs. He'd be a steal at #40. But, with already having Quinn Hughes (and Rathbone), he might be redundant. Yeah we have enough small dmen. We focus our picks this year on RHD dmen like corson and roman and the next couple years we can focus on goalie and forwards which from all accounts are supposed to be good draft years. I mean the future of our D could look like this Quinn-21 rathbone-22 jouevli-23 woo-20 corson-18 roman-18 now add 3 years to all these players all while we pick forwards and goalies for the 3 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Bertuzzipunch said: Id take corson ceulemans at 9 i dont care hes predicted to go in the 20s No. U absolutely move back to like 15 if you want someone like him. Re-coup a 2nd round pick at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzipunch Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: No. U absolutely move back to like 15 if you want someone like him. Re-coup a 2nd round pick at the same time. Fine, 9OA to winnipeg for appleton and 17OA we pick corson at 17 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 8 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said: Fine, 9OA to winnipeg for appleton and 17OA we pick corson at 17 If we knew Cuelemans was going to be there at 17 for sure. But likely he’s gone before that. Best to just take him at 9. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustABandwagoner Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: If we knew Cuelemans was going to be there at 17 for sure. But likely he’s gone before that. Best to just take him at 9. no. I would switch picks with Calgary if you are really that high on him. Move back to 12 and get a 2nd round pick And Calgary can haunt us for the next decade + with Wally Edited July 3, 2021 by DontMessMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now