So - Who Should The Canucks Take At The Number 9 Spot?

[tas]

18 minutes ago, Nurnge said:

If the 9th isn't traded I like any of the top 10 rated picks in most rankings hell I wouldn't jump off a bridge if they saw something in Raty that they thought they could Improve . Personally I want Clarke or Hughes most . McTavish seems to get the most attention on here but as probably the second best Center in the draft I think he will be gone before #9 , Is Ian Clarke more likely stay if they take Wallstedt ?  Demko DePietro and Wallstedt Lots to work with next few years . I do see a pretty good trade piece a few years from now with anyone of them and a sure fire starter for the next decade 

 

 

clark was reportedly a big part of the decision to draft silovs, so between him, dipietro and demko, I think clark has plenty on his plate.  

[Nucker 67]

Tampa doesn't have a 1st rounder and lots of young D, they may not be able to afford soon down the road

 

to TB - #9, Lind and ?

to VAN - Sergachev

 

Lind may not be needed in VAN if two of Boeser, Hoglander and Podkolzin take the Top 6 RW spots. 

[tas]

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

Tampa doesn't have a 1st rounder and lots of young D, they may not be able to afford soon down the road

 

to TB - #9, Lind and ?

to VAN - Sergachev

 

Lind may not be needed in VAN if two of Boeser, Hoglander and Podkolzin take the Top 6 RW spots. 

lind has virtually no value, so that question mark would probably have to turn into something the quality of boeser, hughes or demko. 

[86Viking]

6 hours ago, smithers joe said:

i have a feeling, we'll be trading the pick for help now. maybe for a top 4 d-man.

I am fine with that, but we better be also clearing some cap space in order to fit that D we acquire and still have room to address other areas of need like #3C and possibly a top 6 capable winger too. But if we are unwilling to give up picks or prospects to move LE, Holtby, Roussel or Beagle then we better try and get the Kraken to take Myers so we can fit that D in

[86Viking]

9 minutes ago, tas said:

lind has virtually no value, so that question mark would probably have to turn into something the quality of boeser, hughes or demko. 

I disagree, for a team in cap hell I can't see why they would bock at Lind if they believe he could make their NHL roster considering he has a dirt cheap ELC. This is why I disagree on protecting someone like Pearson and leaving other younger much cheaper F's like Lind, Gadj, Jasek even being exposed for Seattle. 

 

Big question mark if any of the above could be have the NHLer Pearson is but that is a risk I think the Canucks should be taking with a younger team still a year to a few years away from being a threat and in that time Pearson might be done his current deal. So, would mean we have a hole to fill in the prospect pool if we lost a Lind, Gadj, Jasek even. Look at our prospect depth pool, Lind, Gadj and Jasek are our best F prospects not in the NHL and we need to overhaul our NHL bottom 6 in a huge way and 1 or 2 of those guys might be ready to contribute in that type of role as soon as next year for us.

 

Protect the kids and cheap contracts and expose the Meyers, Pearson and other veterans instead in hopes that Seattle take some cap from us in a player they select, much like Vegas did when they took Sbisa from us.

[tas]

6 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

I disagree, for a team in cap hell I can't see why they would bock at Lind if they believe he could make their NHL roster considering he has a dirt cheap ELC. This is why I disagree on protecting someone like Pearson and leaving other younger much cheaper F's like Lind, Gadj, Jasek even being exposed for Seattle. 

 

Big question mark if any of the above could be have the NHLer Pearson is but that is a risk I think the Canucks should be taking with a younger team still a year to a few years away from being a threat and in that time Pearson might be done his current deal. So, would mean we have a hole to fill in the prospect pool if we lost a Lind, Gadj, Jasek even. Look at our prospect depth pool, Lind, Gadj and Jasek are our best F prospects not in the NHL and we need to overhaul our NHL bottom 6 in a huge way and 1 or 2 of those guys might be ready to contribute in that type of role as soon as next year for us.

 

Protect the kids and cheap contracts and expose the Meyers, Pearson and other veterans instead in hopes that Seattle take some cap from us in a player they select, much like Vegas did when they took Sbisa from us.

neither lind nor gadjovich showed anything in their auditions (a little unfair to gadjovich, but still) to suggest they have what it takes to make the jump, plus they're not expansion exempt. you can't pencil them into your roster, and there's a (small) chance they get plucked.

 

valueless. 

 

edit: plus the idea of protecting objectively worse players that don't have what it takes instead of very serviceable players that contribute in the top half of your roster on the basis of age and dollars is quite simply put a loser strategy meant for an endless buffalonean rebuild. 

Edited June 8, 2021 by tas

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

neither lind nor gadjovich showed anything in their auditions (a little unfair to gadjovich, but still) to suggest they have what it takes to make the jump, plus they're not expansion exempt. you can't pencil them into your roster, and there's a (small) chance they get plucked.

 

valueless. 

There’s actually a very high chance one of them gets taken if we leave them unprotected. They’re more attractive than Holtby or Bowey.

 

So fans have to ask if they’re fine throwing away yet another 2nd rounder before we see what it becomes. 
 

If it’s me I’m not risking letting them go on the chance they become solid top 9 contributors. Especially not to keep a fourth liner that many only contribute for another few seasons (if he doesn’t have concussion issues now).

[ShawnAntoski]

6 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

There’s actually a very high chance one of them gets taken if we leave them unprotected. They’re more attractive than Holtby or Bowey.

 

So fans have to ask if they’re fine throwing away yet another 2nd rounder before we see what it becomes. 
 

If it’s me I’m not risking letting them go on the chance they become solid top 9 contributors. Especially not to keep a fourth liner that many only contribute for another few seasons (if he doesn’t have concussion issues now).

Ditto, it ultimately comes down - if the coach will be willing to give the player a legit chance

[tas]

11 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

There’s actually a very high chance one of them gets taken if we leave them unprotected. They’re more attractive than Holtby or Bowey.

 

So fans have to ask if they’re fine throwing away yet another 2nd rounder before we see what it becomes. 
 

If it’s me I’m not risking letting them go on the chance they become solid top 9 contributors. Especially not to keep a fourth liner that many only contribute for another few seasons (if he doesn’t have concussion issues now).

motte is better by far than those two will ever be, and important to the group no less. for me it's a no brainer to try to get another top 9 forward and top 4 defenceman prior to the draft and leave all of macewen, lind, gadjovich and juolevi exposed. 

 

if you're always planning for the future, it's never going to come. 

 

this team also can't afford another character dressing room loss right now if you want happy players on the team. 

[DeNiro]

9 minutes ago, tas said:

motte is better by far than those two will ever be, and important to the group no less. for me it's a no brainer to try to get another top 9 forward and top 4 defenceman prior to the draft and leave all of macewen, lind, gadjovich and juolevi exposed. 

 

if you're always planning for the future, it's never going to come. 

 

this team also can't afford another character dressing room loss right now if you want happy players on the team. 

There’s no way you can say that yet. That’s just a guess on your part.

 

At the same age Motte was in the AHL putting up worse numbers than either of those two.

 

I would counter with if you’re sacrificing the future for a slightly better chance to win now you’re probably not gonna win now or in the future. Motte is a replaceable player. We don’t know what Lind or Gadjovich are yet no matter how many predictions you wanna make.

 

Motte isn’t really a part of the core from what I can tell. Not sure we can’t bring in more character.

[tas]

5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

There’s no way you can say that yet. That’s just a guess on your part.

 

At the same age Motte was in the AHL putting up worse numbers than either of those two.

 

I would counter with if you’re sacrificing the future for a slightly better chance to win now you’re probably not gonna win now or in the future. Motte is a replaceable player. We don’t know what Lind or Gadjovich are yet no matter how many predictions you wanna make.

 

Motte isn’t really a part of the core from what I can tell. Not sure we can’t bring in more character.

this was lind's draft + 4 year. bagels in 7 nhl games. in motte's draft + 4 year, he wasn't shooting the lights out, but he put up 7 points in 33 nhl games. 

 

here's the thing: motte is a "4th liner who might only contribute for a few more years". lind and gadjovich are light years away from being good enough to even play on the 4th line, more than likely will never contribute at all, and become waiver eligible, what, next year? it doesn't even warrant a second thought as far as I'm concerned. 

 

green has also mentioned on more than one occasion that motte is important to the group. 

 

how about this DeNiro: you and I have both been here forever ... care for a wager? if in 5 years, motte has had a better career than those 2 guys, you leave cdc forever. if either of those 2 guys has turned out better than motte, I'll leave forever.

 

deal?

[Nucker 67]

52 minutes ago, tas said:

lind has virtually no value, so that question mark would probably have to turn into something the quality of boeser, hughes or demko. 

Well, he is cheap, and could still become a good bottom 6 player. Maybe it's not Lind? Maybe it's Juolevi? The #9 is nothing to sneeze at, especially for a team without a 1st.  Sergachev (and Cernak) are RFAs in 2 years and will want a big raise. Can TB afford them? They currently have 6 players making over $6,000,000. By comparison, the Canucks have 2.

[tas]

4 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Well, he is cheap, and could still become a good bottom 6 player. Maybe it's not Lind? Maybe it's Juolevi? The #9 is nothing to sneeze at, especially for a team without a 1st.  Sergachev (and Cernak) are RFAs in 2 years and will want a big raise. Can TB afford them? They currently have 6 players making over $6,000,000. By comparison, the Canucks have 2.

I see them making many other changes before they even ponder moving sergachev, unless someone blows them out of their socks with an offer they can't refuse. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tas said:

clark was reportedly a big part of the decision to draft silovs, so between him, dipietro and demko, I think clark has plenty on his plate.  

Hmmm  I'm kind of puzzled about this...  

 

Ian Clarke was interviewed after the draft and he compared Silovs to a wild horse that hasn't been trained yet...  but I don't remember hearing that he was consulted on the draft choice.  Can you explain?

[tas]

1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Hmmm  I'm kind of puzzled about this...  

 

Ian Clarke was interviewed after the draft and he compared Silovs to a wild horse that hasn't been trained yet...  but I don't remember hearing that he was consulted on the draft choice.  Can you explain?

it's been referenced by vancouver media (and maybe benning? can't remember) that clark had a lot of input on that draft choice. I could try to find an article but it'll be challenging because if memory serves it was mentioned in passing, not as the point of the article.  

[Sedinyoureyesontheprize]

I think Johnson will be gone top 3 but if he’s there when we pick, we just can’t pass we’d be picking up a top 6 elite+ forward for the next decade. 

 

 

 

[Bertuzzipunch]

30 minutes ago, tas said:

this was lind's draft + 4 year. bagels in 7 nhl games. in motte's draft + 4 year, he wasn't shooting the lights out, but he put up 7 points in 33 nhl games. 

 

here's the thing: motte is a "4th liner who might only contribute for a few more years". lind and gadjovich are light years away from being good enough to even play on the 4th line, more than likely will never contribute at all, and become waiver eligible, what, next year? it doesn't even warrant a second thought as far as I'm concerned. 

 

green has also mentioned on more than one occasion that motte is important to the group. 

 

how about this DeNiro: you and I have both been here forever ... care for a wager? if in 5 years, motte has had a better career than those 2 guys, you leave cdc forever. if either of those 2 guys has turned out better than motte, I'll leave forever.

 

deal?

Light years away? Both have been getting better every single year since they have been drafted. I disagree with you assessment of these two!!!!

[tas]

4 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Light years away? Both have been getting better every single year since they have been drafted. I disagree with you assessment of these two!!!!

you know when they say about a young player, "so and so didn't look out of place"?

 

kole lind looked out of place. so did jonah gadjovich, for like the 9 seconds that green trusted him on the ice.

[kloubek]

11 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Light years away? Both have been getting better every single year since they have been drafted. I disagree with you assessment of these two!!!!

X2. Gadjovich had... what... ONE game? That's like saying Dipietro is gonna suck because of being lit up too. And as it turns out, his development is going just fine. Lind has a slightly larger sample size, but on both its just too early to say.

 

...and we really do want to keep Motte. He knows his place and does his job very well. Makes a bigger impact than most of the guys we've cycled through our bottom line(s) for certain.

[appleboy]

Thedraftanalyst.com

 

If you haven't checked it out you might want to. They have some nice detailed writeups and an interesting top 10. A few surprises.  Lambos as the second best D man in the draft.