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

[Speculation] LeBrun: Benning seeking a young top-9 forward for the Canucks


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Then let's trade Pettersson for Byfield.

 

Savvy?

Our top 6 would be too weak without Pettersson.

 

Offsetting the loss of Hughes with a number 1 D man like Power would be much less of a loss.

 

With Juolevi looking like he can be a future top 4 and Rathbone, Woo, and Tryamkin coming our D should be much more stable in the future.

 

Edited by DeNiro
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warhippy said:

i can see it.  2 years, Byfield struggling...if we had a #1 defenseman we'd be ok.....let's trade Byfield for a #1 defenseman

No $&!#, we've only waited umpteen years to have an elite PMD.

I think the last one we had was a broken Paul Reinhart way back.

Ehrhoff wasnt in the elite category imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Honky Cat said:

QH is precisely the kind of option that a lot of teams dont have.

You trade him, you'd be in very tough to find a comparable.

 

 

He brings offense, but is always going to be under sized, always going to get out muscles and consequently is always going to be average defensively.  

 

The problem with that is points cost money, but points from a dman don't win you cups unless that dman can also dominate defensively.  

 

As @DeNiro points out, they're never going to be a contender without adjusting their lineup and moving valuable assets at one position for valuable assets at another position.  Not many teams win Cups with a stable full of players they drafted.

 

AGain, it's not about trading Hughes, it's about seizing an opportunity to get a big bodied impact legit #1 cman.  And as @DeNiro says, it's based on the reality that Canucks are very likely ggoing to be drafting high and very likely to come out of the draft with a #1 dman

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

i can see it.  2 years, Byfield struggling...if we had a #1 defenseman we'd be ok.....let's trade Byfield for a #1 defenseman

That would be assuming that a first overall defenseman flops too?

 

Again you only do the trade based on our draft position.

 

You don’t trade Hughes and gamble that you can replace him with a number 10 pick.

 

Rare that a 1st overall D man flops. It happens but typically those players are impact players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Our top 6 would be too weak without Pettersson.

 

Offsetting the loss of Hughes with a number 1 D man like Power would be much less of a loss.

 

With Juolevi looking like he can be a future top 4 and Rathbone, Woo, and Tryamkin coming our D should be much more stable in the future.

 

There's zero guarantee OJ could be anything substantial. Posters really need to hit the brakes on this player.

He could be Hamhuis, or he could be Pouliot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

There's zero guarantee OJ could be anything substantial. Posters really need to hit the brakes on this player.

He could be Hamhuis, or he could be Pouliot.

He won’t be Pouliot. Completely different skill sets.

 

Of course there’s zero guarantee. There’s also zero guarantee Hughes will win the Norris or learn to play well consistently in his own end.

 

Both are beside the point. The point is if we have a more balanced D core we don’t necessarily need both Hughes and another number 1 puck mover. A lot of teams get by with one.


Size does still matter in the playoffs too.

Edited by DeNiro
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Our top 6 would be too weak without Pettersson.

 

Offsetting the loss of Hughes with a number 1 D man like Power would be much less of a loss.

 

With Juolevi looking like he can be a future top 4 and Rathbone, Woo, and Tryamkin coming our D should be much more stable in the future.

 

Im genuinely confused by your attempted logic.  Losing a #1 defenseman who was essentially PPG in the playoffs, is essentially ppg this year while holding the top defensive scoring title in the league currently while being on a subpar team is ok

 

BUT

 

We cant lose a sub par Pettersson who you say may not be able to handle the rigours of the nhl season as a #1 centre....

 

Why?

 

Because MAYBE Byfield becomes what he should be.  And MAYBE Juolevi 6 years later or something can become a defenceman kinda like Hughes but better defensively.  Maybe Tryamkin will come back and hey, we can hope for Rathbone and Woo and maybe if we're lucky all of them will become something but to do so we need to trade the ONE defenseman this team has never had for a hope and a prayer

 

You buy lottery tickets and start planning what to do with your winnings don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That would be assuming that a first overall defenseman flops too?

 

Again you only do the trade based on our draft position.

 

You don’t trade Hughes and gamble that you can replace him with a number 10 pick.

 

Rare that a 1st overall D man flops. It happens but typically those players are impact players.

Oh...we hold the 1st overall pick?  When did that happen?

 

Edited by Warhippy
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

i can see it.  2 years, Byfield struggling...if we had a #1 defenseman we'd be ok.....let's trade Byfield for a #1 defenseman

There's a pretty good chance they come out of the draft with a top 2 damn this year.  They also have OJ, Rathbone, Woo, Try either ready or close to ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warhippy said:

Oh...we hold the 1st overall pick?  When did that happen?

 

If you’re not going to read what I’m saying don’t bother responding.

 

I’ve said the whole time the deal would be dependent on what pick we have.

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

He won’t be Pouliot. Completely different skill sets.

 

Of course there’s zero guarantee. There’s also zero guarantee Hughes will win the Norris or learn to play well consistently in his own end.

 

Both are besides the point. The point is if we have a more balanced D core we don’t necessarily need both Hughes and another number 1 puck mover. A lot of teams get by with one.

If we had a more balanced d core...how do you explain our defensive issues?  How does it look taking essentially 14% of overall team generated points away for a "possibility" who may or may not do something

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stawns said:

He brings offense, but is always going to be under sized, always going to get out muscles and consequently is always going to be average defensively.  

 

The problem with that is points cost money, but points from a dman don't win you cups unless that dman can also dominate defensively.  

 

As @DeNiro points out, they're never going to be a contender without adjusting their lineup and moving valuable assets at one position for valuable assets at another position.  Not many teams win Cups with a stable full of players they drafted.

 

AGain, it's not about trading Hughes, it's about seizing an opportunity to get a big bodied impact legit #1 cman.  And as @DeNiro says, it's based on the reality that Canucks are very likely ggoing to be drafting high and very likely to come out of the draft with a #1 dman

I'm not arguing against bold moves, but you dont trade a QH.

This isnt 1995 anymore, the whole size thing isnt what it used to be.

These players only come along once in a while, when you obtain them. You keep them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

If you’re not going to read what I’m saying don’t bother responding.

 

I’ve said the whole time the deal would be dependent on what pick we have.

I have read and you're willing to dangle our only norris calibre defenseman for wishes and hopes and fairy dust.

 

What else am I missing?

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

Im genuinely confused by your attempted logic.  Losing a #1 defenseman who was essentially PPG in the playoffs, is essentially ppg this year while holding the top defensive scoring title in the league currently while being on a subpar team is ok

 

BUT

 

We cant lose a sub par Pettersson who you say may not be able to handle the rigours of the nhl season as a #1 centre....

 

Why?

 

Because MAYBE Byfield becomes what he should be.  And MAYBE Juolevi 6 years later or something can become a defenceman kinda like Hughes but better defensively.  Maybe Tryamkin will come back and hey, we can hope for Rathbone and Woo and maybe if we're lucky all of them will become something but to do so we need to trade the ONE defenseman this team has never had for a hope and a prayer

 

You buy lottery tickets and start planning what to do with your winnings don't you?

Except Hughes is not a number 1 D man yet. 
 

When and only when he figures out how to play consistently at both ends of the ice will he be a number 1. 
 

Players like Pronger win you cups, not players like Karlsson. Hughes still has a lot of developing to do to not just end up being a Barrie type power play specialist.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Honky Cat said:

I'm not arguing against bold moves, but you dont trade a QH.

This isnt 1995 anymore, the whole size thing isnt what it used to be.

These players only come along once in a while, when you obtain them. You keep them.

Why not?  How else do you get a Byfield?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

He won’t be Pouliot. Completely different skill sets.

 

Of course there’s zero guarantee. There’s also zero guarantee Hughes will win the Norris or learn to play well consistently in his own end.

 

Both are beside the point. The point is if we have a more balanced D core we don’t necessarily need both Hughes and another number 1 puck mover. A lot of teams get by with one.


Size does still matter in the playoffs too.

I'd put my money on Hughes winning the Norris, than Juolevi being being a first pairing D man?

Any day of the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stawns said:

Why not?  How else do you get a Byfield?

You can draft a byfield easier than you can draft a hughes

 

Why not just draft a byfield this year 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Except Hughes is not a number 1 D man yet. 
 

When and only when he figures out how to play consistently at both ends of the ice will he be a number 1. 
 

Players like Pronger win you cups, not players like Karlsson. Hughes still has a lot of developing to do to not just end up being a Barrie type power play specialist.

Exactly this

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Honky Cat said:

I'd put my money on Hughes winning the Norris, than Juolevi being being a first pairing D man?

Any day of the week.

He's got 50% of his game to improve a lot before he's even in that conversation

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...