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

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 6/11/2021 at 3:34 PM, EddieVedder said:

No thanks.  Dont need anymore soft D on this team.  

I know he's not big (even though he's the biggest of the Hughes Brothers) but does he play soft?

 

Gudbranson was big but didn't use his size.

Romanov is smaller but he bodied Petriangelo 

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

agree completely.  It's nothing against Hughes, but that's not what the Canucks need

Who says you need to keep all the players you draft? The reason GM's talk about best player available is because there are rarely any guarantees in drafting prospects so take the player most likely to succeed. If the best player available is another quick skilled DMan so be it.

 

Lets say there's a scenario where we have Hughes, Rathbone and Hughes all living up to their potential as top offensive dmen. Do you not think it would be a great position for the Canucks? Could Benning not pick the best 2 and trade the other for something else? Do you think the Avalanche are dumb because they drafted Bowen Byram even though they already have Girard and Makar?

 

There are many ways to fill all your positional needs. Drafting may be the cheapest, but also carries the most risk. I say take the best player available and don't lose out on a Nylander or Ehlers just because you "need" a Virtanen.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deets said:

Who says you need to keep all the players you draft? The reason GM's talk about best player available is because there are rarely any guarantees in drafting prospects so take the player most likely to succeed. If the best player available is another quick skilled DMan so be it.

 

Lets say there's a scenario where we have Hughes, Rathbone and Hughes all living up to their potential as top offensive dmen. Do you not think it would be a great position for the Canucks? Could Benning not pick the best 2 and trade the other for something else? Do you think the Avalanche are dumb because they drafted Bowen Byram even though they already have Girard and Makar?

 

There are many ways to fill all your positional needs. Drafting may be the cheapest, but also carries the most risk. I say take the best player available and don't lose out on a Nylander or Ehlers just because you "need" a Virtanen.

Because they're coming into their window on a year or two and whoever they draft this year won't be developed well enough to get the value needed.  They're better off drafting to fill a need at #9 than BPA.  They need young players who can fill a spot in two years.

 

What if they draft BPA and he busts?  

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

Because they're coming into their window on a year or two and whoever they draft this year won't be developed well enough to get the value needed.  They're better off drafting to fill a need at #9 than BPA.  They need young players who can fill a spot in two years.

 

What if they draft BPA and he busts?  

top 10 picks should always be the bpa on the team's list.  Then, even if the player is redundant and doesn't fill a team's need, their trade value (when needed) can be used to fill that need.  

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stawns said:

Because they're coming into their window on a year or two and whoever they draft this year won't be developed well enough to get the value needed.  They're better off drafting to fill a need at #9 than BPA.  They need young players who can fill a spot in two years.

 

What if they draft BPA and he busts?  

You're scenario only considering this years draft pick as the one being traded. What if Rathbone gains value over the next few years and is traded when we need young players who can fill a spot in two years? This is how you extend your teams compete window by having younger cheaper players constantly replacing your roster. The Blackhawks did this for years.


All draft picks have a potential to be a bust, which is why you pick BPA to minimize that risk.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Somewhat related to this topic.....loosely.

 

Taking the upcoming 2021 draft into account, here is the ‘elite’ Stanley Cup contending team that I hope we’ll have in 22-23.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Hoglander-Horvat-Guenther
Pearson-Granlund-Podkolzin

Motte-Lind-MacEwen

 

Lindholm-Schmidt 
Hughes-Larsson

Rathbone-Myers

 

Demko

Dipietro 

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Deets said:

You're scenario only considering this years draft pick as the one being traded. What if Rathbone gains value over the next few years and is traded when we need young players who can fill a spot in two years? This is how you extend your teams compete window by having younger cheaper players constantly replacing your roster. The Blackhawks did this for years.


All draft picks have a potential to be a bust, which is why you pick BPA to minimize that risk.

And to maximize future trade value.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2021 at 5:53 PM, appleboy said:

I hear everyone thinking that we need to make a trade to fix our back end. I would try to resign Edler and Hamonic to two year deals . Maybe make a deal with Edler for one year at a time for around 2 mil. Let him finish his career here.

However they need to play OJ and Rathbone.  A lot.

What needs to be fixed is the bottom six .

 

Keep the picks and draft some good players .

I think Eddie will take one year at 1M. 

He's always got a job here after he retires. A European scout perhaps. 

He understands our cap. 

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

I think Eddie will take one year at 1M. 

He's always got a job here after he retires. A European scout perhaps. 

He understands our cap. 

It’s not about the money so much as it is about the roster spot and how Green will deploy him.

 

The second a rookie struggles Green will be pushing Edler right back into the top 4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

I know he's not big (even though he's the biggest of the Hughes Brothers) but does he play soft?

 

Gudbranson was big but didn't use his size.

Romanov is smaller but he bodied Petriangelo 

Gudbranson did use his size.  

Hughes Nor Rathbone would even try bodying Petro. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next BPA.  Since we signed ian clark for 5 years lets produce world class goalies. Then one day we can trade him away for a 1st overall pick

 

Cossa (6-foot-6, 210 pounds) was 17-1-1 with a 1.57 goals-against average, .941 save percentage

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If McTavish is there, we need to grab him.  As weak as we are on defense, the more i think about it, we need to strengthen the middle.  After Bo and Petey, we dont have much.  McTavish is going to be a beast of a player.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alflives said:

top 10 picks should always be the bpa on the team's list.  Then, even if the player is redundant and doesn't fill a team's need, their trade value (when needed) can be used to fill that need.  

Can it really? I've never really seen it that much. You pretty much lose value as soon as you trade a young player unless it's a one for one swap, which doesn't happen often.

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

It’s not about the money so much as it is about the roster spot and how Green will deploy him.

 

The second a rookie struggles Green will be pushing Edler right back into the top 4.

Yeah, an older no shot, no pushback and slow warrior.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Deets said:

You're scenario only considering this years draft pick as the one being traded. What if Rathbone gains value over the next few years and is traded when we need young players who can fill a spot in two years? This is how you extend your teams compete window by having younger cheaper players constantly replacing your roster. The Blackhawks did this for years.


All draft picks have a potential to be a bust, which is why you pick BPA to minimize that risk.

Fair point

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Deets said:

You're scenario only considering this years draft pick as the one being traded. What if Rathbone gains value over the next few years and is traded when we need young players who can fill a spot in two years? This is how you extend your teams compete window by having younger cheaper players constantly replacing your roster. The Blackhawks did this for years.


All draft picks have a potential to be a bust, which is why you pick BPA to minimize that risk.

With a top 10 pick, I'd almost always draft for need and almost always a fwd unless a Quinn Hughes drops into your lap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2021 at 5:49 PM, Devron44 said:

McTavish’s goal to assist ratio bothers me for a centermen. Can he even pass the puck. Reminds me of Sutter. What did he go, pretty high in the draft didn’t he 

so agree don't like that at all

 

I saw that and said why hasn't anyone put him on wing

Edited by Arrow 1983
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2021 at 5:12 PM, Patel Bure said:

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

 

Although I’ll have to plead ignorance with the prospects for the most part in this draft, two realistic choices for me are Kent Johnson (C/LW) and Carson Lambos (LD).

 

Two things that jump out at me for both guys is their strong skating abilities, excellent two way play, and intelligence.  In Johnson’s case, he also has a lot of offensive flair and creativity and can drive a line possession wise.  He’s been compared to Mikael Granlund stylistically.  
 

I’m also of the belief that Carson Lambos would be projected to go much higher had he been 6’3 210 instead of 6’0 200 lbs.   But the guy is a good skater, smart, makes a good first pass, transitions well, and has a hard shot.  His biggest skill however, is his ability to handle forecheck pressure.  If the Canucks are looking for a long term Edler replacement, then this could be our guy. 
 

On the flip side, I’m not so sure if I’m sold on Mason McTavish.  I’m not sold on his skating or his ability to play physical consistently, which is supposed to be his bread and butter.

 

What are your thoughts? 

 

 

My pick is Cole Sillinger or Chaz Lucius we have a chance at both of them and they both have late birthdays both in May which means they played most of their draft years as 17 year olds. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

He does play wing at times. If we draft him we need him to be a center.

I am saying he isn't a center 

 

More goals than assists mean he shots more than he passes sounds like a winger to me

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...