Furthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Moderator: Referees
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
- Island Nucklehead
- MVP
- Posts: 8392
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Yeah, maybe we get as high as 27th (New Jersey), or 24th (Dallas), or get a sniff of a wildcard spot only to finish 19th (Philly).theman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:11 amFurthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
If only it was that simple, you just know the NHL would screw us in that lottery. We got lucky with Pettersson, the NHL will never forgive us for making them look stupid in that draft.Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:18 amYeah, maybe we get as high as 27th (New Jersey), or 24th (Dallas), or get a sniff of a wildcard spot only to finish 19th (Philly).theman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:11 amFurthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
- Island Nucklehead
- MVP
- Posts: 8392
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
- Location: Ottawa
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
I bet the NHL is thrilled that Petterson went to Vancouver. He's single-handedly making the Canucks watchable again. The NHL wants a credible Vancouver team, especially with Seattle coming online. Gotta figure that will be a heavily-promoted rivalry (the "Salish Sea Showdown"). Pettersson will be a huge piece of that.
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
You mean the Seattle-San Jose-LA Coastal rivalry that the NHL will be promoting?Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:34 amI bet the NHL is thrilled that Petterson went to Vancouver. He's single-handedly making the Canucks watchable again. The NHL wants a credible Vancouver team, especially with Seattle coming online. Gotta figure that will be a heavily-promoted rivalry (the "Salish Sea Showdown"). Pettersson will be a huge piece of that.
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
- Carl Yagro
- MVP
- Posts: 11955
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: On wide shoulders...
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
This is a very interesting parallel universe type scenario that not many have used as an argument. I think this is a totally logical and reasonable theory and I completely agree. Sometimes you might not get want you wanted, but you end up with something much better that you didn't expect.theman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:11 amFurthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
Also, it's very reasonable to assume management looked at the bare cupboards and lack at every position and waivered from BPA. With JV and Brock already in the system, do you grab another winger or try to fill up in much more dire positions like centers and defencemen with your 1st round pick?
Always easy with hindsight.
The Best GD Canucks Hockey Talk Forum in the World... With Only 18 People!
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
November 30th, 2018Hank wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:38 amThis is a very interesting parallel universe type scenario that not many have used as an argument. I think this is a totally logical and reasonable theory and I completely agree. Sometimes you might not get want you wanted, but you end up with something much better that you didn't expect.theman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:11 amFurthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
Also, it's very reasonable to assume management looked at the bare cupboards and lack at every position and waivered from BPA. With JV and Brock already in the system, do you grab another winger or try to fill up in much more dire positions like centers and defencemen with your 1st round pick?
Always easy with hindsight.
http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 70#p321270
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
- Carl Yagro
- MVP
- Posts: 11955
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: On wide shoulders...
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Christ, I can barely remember things from yesterday.
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
The Best GD Canucks Hockey Talk Forum in the World... With Only 18 People!
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Of course, if we had have drafted Kopitar, we might have a Cup now and not be looking back so much.
woulda, coulda, shoulda....
woulda, coulda, shoulda....
Doc: "BTW, Donny was right, you're smug."
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Had we drafted Tkachuk he would have been banished back to junior and then the AHL until this year. Willie wouldn’t have used him for the first 2 years, and Hank and Danny wouldn’t have tolerated his style of game. We would only now be seeing what we had in him.....and honestly I’m betting his agent would have forced a trade prior to re-signing as a RFA because his client was languishing in the minors.Hank wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:38 amThis is a very interesting parallel universe type scenario that not many have used as an argument. I think this is a totally logical and reasonable theory and I completely agree. Sometimes you might not get want you wanted, but you end up with something much better that you didn't expect.theman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:11 amFurthermore, if we did draft Thachuk, he probably would have improved our side enough that we might have fallen in the draft in '17 and not be able to take Pettersson. So, while in '16 he, in hindsight, is the right choice, would you trade Pettersson for Thachuk?Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:31 pm I think people should just admit that Tkachuk is exactly the type of top six we need in the line up. I think its fair to say a do over would be nice. However, having said that, we still need to see if Juolevi develops into a top four dman for us, or becomes a blue chip trade prospect now that we have Hughes. His development thus far is not too bad considering he's a dman, we all know, that unless it is a franchise type man, it takes longer for them to develop. But at the same time its hard not to feel some disappointment with his development, granted hindered by injuries.
He would be beloved if he were on the Canucks. I for one though didn't want Benning to pick him. I had no idea who I would have rather he had taken because knew nothing about Juolevi. But then again I knew almost nothing about Pettersson.
I just think this argument is dead.
Also, it's very reasonable to assume management looked at the bare cupboards and lack at every position and waivered from BPA. With JV and Brock already in the system, do you grab another winger or try to fill up in much more dire positions like centers and defencemen with your 1st round pick?
Always easy with hindsight.
- Blob Mckenzie
- MVP
- Posts: 31126
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
- Location: Oakalla
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Even had they drafted Tkachuk he wasn’t going to catapult that tire fire of a team more than a spot on on his own. Granlund the air thief ended up getting the ice time he got. So while he would have been a fair bit better than Granlund, it wouldn’t have made a big dent
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
- DonCherry4PM
- MVP
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
So you're saying I am more like Pettersson than Juolevi. Thanks, Strange, that is really big of you.Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:31 pmOJ is a big man, end of story.DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:11 pm Just because a phenom NHLer (Pettersson) is near-emaciated doesn't mean another guy (Juolevi) isn't "razor-thin"
DonCherry4PM is not a big man, end of story.
I actually appreciate the introduction of relevant facts and figures rather than irrelevant pictures.
BTW thanks, Rats. I think we can all agree that Juolevi is not "razor-thin" when compared to the NHL's average size.
This may be true but, at the time, JB indicated that he thought Juolevi was BPA - I remember this because I was pretty thrown off at first but thought that if JB said Juolevi was BPA, there must have been something I was missing. Now he may not have been telling the truth when he said that but his stated position was different than what you are hypothesizing.Hank wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:38 am Also, it's very reasonable to assume management looked at the bare cupboards and lack at every position and waivered from BPA. With JV and Brock already in the system, do you grab another winger or try to fill up in much more dire positions like centers and defencemen with your 1st round pick?
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
Vincibility lies in the enemy.
- Sun Tzu
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
further to that Juolevi will top out at around 215 in 2-3 years so will be quite a bit bigger than the average nhl player
Silence intelligence so stupid isn’t offended….
Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT
Nope. The Seattle- San Jose - Anaheim - LA rivalry.Cornuck wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:35 amYou mean the Seattle-San Jose-LA Coastal rivalry that the NHL will be promoting?Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:34 amI bet the NHL is thrilled that Petterson went to Vancouver. He's single-handedly making the Canucks watchable again. The NHL wants a credible Vancouver team, especially with Seattle coming online. Gotta figure that will be a heavily-promoted rivalry (the "Salish Sea Showdown"). Pettersson will be a huge piece of that.