20 juill. 2020
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Knuckl3s</b></div><div>Just because he's been on IR doesn't make him a negative asset, he actually has to show on the ice that he is devoid of value. Right now Hamonic can fetch a 4th/5th rounder pretty easily IMO
First of all, Chatfield isn't that good, he's no more than a 7th D-man on any team. Tanev would be nice, but at the end of the day, he's an ageing defenseman making premium money for Calgary and he has two more years of term left
Vancouver shouldn't draft based on positional need, they already tried that and it got them Olli Juolevi
Vancouver simply needs one more top 4 D-man and maybe Ian Cole is that guy next off-season, but as of right now I think Hughes, OEL, and Myers are fine to hold onto going forward</div></div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>Vancouver failed once, but what if they tried that approach again? They might fail, yes, but they could succeed. It all depends on how a prospect gets developed, and also what they are developed into. Some players, like Hoffman, are one trick ponies. However, other players, like Aho, excel in every situation. Hoffman was developed into a PP specialist, whereas Aho was developed into a Swiss Army knife, which is useful in all situations. If one change was made, these 2 players could easily be the opposite of what they are now. What I’m saying is, if you don’t take a chance, how do you know that you won’t succeed. Sure it’s a gamble, which is kind of how KK ended up in Carolina, but gambles can also have big paydays. Who knows, maybe Joulevi might end up like Hedman, or maybe he might end up like Hakanpaa.</div></div>
Just quoting one of your guys conversation posts.
I think your both right.
I think the team should take the best player available with their 1st rounder's, unless there isn't a significant gap between that player and a player that fits a positional need, but for me that only extends to the C and RD positions. Since Vancouver has a desperate need at the RD position, I do think they should make it a priority from the 2nd round on unless they value a particular player SIGNIFICANTLY more.
The reason I feel that way is because young players that either play or are expected to develop into top 6 C's and top 4 RD's are very difficult to acquire, basically if you don't draft them, good luck getting them. A perfect example is Vancouver who have been searching for a top 4 RD for many years.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>Please note before I start ai live on the eastern seaboard and rarely get to watch the Canucks unless they are in town, so my logic might be a bit off. I think before the Canucks start working on their bottom six, they start prioritizing defensive defensemen. Hughes is mainly a pp specialist, with some good 5v5 playing, but he isn’t that good defensively. OEL is a bit better defensively, but is better suited to offensive duties. Cole is very good defensively, plus he can play top pairing minutes if the need arises, as has been shown this season. Myers is ok, but the contract weighs the team down. I must say, the Canucks should have kept Tanev and Chatfield, as they have both been really good for their respective teams, albeit Chatfield has had limited ice time this season due to injury/depth.
In the drafts, the Canucks should really consider not taking the best player available at their pick, but to take a player who would fill an organizational need. From the looks of it, the areas of weakness include RD and G, albeit G is not as critical right now, with DiPietro being close to NHL ready, they need to start developing another goalie. You could also consider C to be a weakness, but that all depends on Horvat and where he ends up for his next contract. Look at what the Canes did in the most recent draft. With the 2021 draft being considered fairly weak, Canes made a show of trading a bunch of picks backwards and getting more players, and we ended up with Scott Morrow, who is projected to be better than Cale Makar. They also addressed their position of need (RD) with 2 big selections in the second round.
The Cancuks should probably just commit to the rebuild, and come out even stronger. The fans might not like it, as whether they win or lose (at least in the playoffs) the city burns. But jokes aside, if they had committed to the rebuild this year, they probably would be out of it in 3-4 years, whereas now they might be looking at 5-6 if they commit now. This is just my opinion, but I digress.</div></div>
I’ve been hoping for a rebuild for at least the last 6 years, but I just don’t see the management/ownership group here committing to it. If they had of committed to a rebuild 6-7 years ago we would have already been out of it and possible be a contending team (if it was done right), instead we’re been near the bottom of the standings almost all those years.
I still feel the team should commit to a rebuild now, we may be a playoff contesting team (still don’t think we’re there) but I don’t want to be stuck in mediocrity. I want to be in late playoff runs each year.
With all that said, I feel the have the core in place to be a contender. EP although having a poor year is still in my eyes a franchise center, QH is definitely a number one defeseman and a possible Norris trophy winner some day, Demko made the All Star team this year. They also have some good young supporting pieces in Hoglander, Podkolzin, and I think Rathbone could potentially join that group, but the team needs a lot more pieces especially at defense.
If I were to commit to a full rebuild at this point, pretty much ever player on the team would be available that wasent listed above, assuming the price is right. Although players like Horvat, Boeser and Garland aren’t old, they would be available for the right price because they will be out of or exiting their prime when the team actually has the ability to contend.
One of the possible repercussions of committing to a rebuild is core players becoming sour on the organization for losing and wanting out.
Anyways with this team above, I tried to remain competitive for a playoff spot without selling assets and picking up some futures along the way. With Horvat becoming a UFA one season later I would definitely be opening to moving him as this season as well.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Knuckl3s</b></div><div>They might if they think it better equips them for a playoff run
I personally disagree in that I think they could make some pretty encouraging money in money out exchanges. I think guys like Faksa, Glendening, Raffl, Hakanpaa, and Gurianov would be good fits in Vancouver, and guys like Miller, Boeser, Myers, Poolman, Hamonic, and even Pearson would fit well in Dallas
I would look to get some high end prospects in return for Miller too, but if no other team is willing to fork over that kind of return, if they willing only to either trade high draft picks or other good roster players, then I'm not going to hold my breath. And if you think the right side is that weak, then I guess you haven't heard how well Myers is playing</div></div>
Obviously you take the best offer you can get for an asset, but I have a hard time believing that a player of Miller's caliber wont be able to return some pretty darn good futures, especially since he has a very reasonable cap hit with another year remaining on his contract.
The RD is the teams Achilles heal. Myers has been playing better than he has in some time but I don't think he has all of a sudden reformed himself after 30 games. Players have outlier games and seasons throughout their career and I'm not sold that after 30 games this season he wont at some point revert back to his old consistent level of play. Myers is third pair NHL player who is currently playing at a second pairing level, but the Canucks lack a true first and second pair RD, that's why I like your Boeser trade as it addresses one of those issues.