A flaw in the Nonis plan ?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Postby cerios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:35 am

While our drafting has improved (with the exception of the Bourdon fiasco), the single biggest problem that DN has isn't with the evaluation of talent its with the understanding that the lower the free agency age gets the heavier the advantage of selecting relatively quickly maturing forwards over defenseman becomes.
cerios
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:43 am

Postby jchockey » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:09 am

cerios wrote:While our drafting has improved (with the exception of the Bourdon fiasco), the single biggest problem that DN has isn't with the evaluation of talent its with the understanding that the lower the free agency age gets the heavier the advantage of selecting relatively quickly maturing forwards over defenseman becomes.


The new CBA was not a factor until the 06 draft. Michael Grabner will take 2-3 years to even become a regular in the NHL. He's definitely a long-term project in my mind.

I would rather take a relatively slower maturing players (forwards, defensemen, goalies alike) because it means that there is still the possibility of a team keeping the players' rights once he reaches his peak. Jordan Staal will hit the market once he is 25 (?) years old, and most players don't peak until they're 27.

I also thought it was a good idea to take 20-year old Sergei Shirokov in the draft.
User avatar
jchockey
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 8:46 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Postby Grizzly » Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:53 am

I think Tremblay is there to provide some offensive depth, Fitzpatrick was supposed to provide the defensive depth


... and hasn't done much more than fill a spot on the roster.

DN thought he had enough depth on the blue line by signing Fitzpatrick and Tremblay, but apparently it wasn't enough.


Clearly ...

Or put another way - if Fitzpatrick is going to play 18 minutes and contribute to 3+ goals against (4 by my count against Minny), why not cut his time down to no more than ten minutes and give that time to Bourdon and Edler?


Exactly ... we are obviously weak on defence and if Fitzpatrick is not making the cut then lets have Bourdon and Edler get the time. I would rather have the younger guys make the mistakes and learn from them. The only drawback is the pressure and pyschological impact it will have on them ... will it completely and permanently destroy any confidence in themselves as opposed to getting them ready earlier .... That is actually a big consideration.

Grizz
User avatar
Grizzly
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Dawson Creek

Postby tantalum » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:30 am

Well garrioch has the Volchenkov rumour as Volchenkov or Schubert for Morrison as the basis of a potential deal. I know he's about as reliable as Eklund.

However, I'm actually not against that depending on the final trade tally (i.e. for Morrison i think it would have to be Volchenkov, for Schubert I wouldn't give up more than Cooke and maybe not even that much). It frees up money that would be necessary to replace Morrison with a cheaper version.

To do such a trade it is imperative Nonis have another move lined up to replace Morrison.

It is worth remembering that Morrison and Cooke take up $4.7 mil in cap room...if the team can get 3 decent players for that money they could be ahead of the game. The team is lacking depth all around...blueline and forward. It is getting near time for Nonis to start making some changes to it if players don;t start showing up the next couple of games.

One move I'd do right now is bring up Hansen. He has performed well it seems in manitoba and I think with his game he could learn a lot by being in the NHL. I don't think he'd be any worse than what is currently in the bottom 6.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby MarkMM » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:21 pm

cerios wrote:While our drafting has improved (with the exception of the Bourdon fiasco), the single biggest problem that DN has isn't with the evaluation of talent its with the understanding that the lower the free agency age gets the heavier the advantage of selecting relatively quickly maturing forwards over defenseman becomes.


I preferred Kopitar on draft day, but to call Bourdon a "fiasco" is downright silly...

Quoting tantalum from another thread:

"And let's not get down on the poor kid. There is 1 D-man in the NHL that comes from his draft year (Vlasic), and only 5 forwards from his draft year in the NHL (Crosby, Kopitar, Brule, Stastny, Latendresse). And arguably Brule and Latendresse are not ready for the NHL at this time either but their teams have decided another year in junior does them no good. Instead they get about 10 minutes a night and nothing more."

As much trouble as he's having getting his timing at the NHL level, I don't think there are many people out there who've seen his tools who don't think he's going to be a gem, and sooner rather than later, just not now.
Mark
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Postby levelheaded » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:45 pm

MarkMM wrote:
cerios wrote:While our drafting has improved (with the exception of the Bourdon fiasco), the single biggest problem that DN has isn't with the evaluation of talent its with the understanding that the lower the free agency age gets the heavier the advantage of selecting relatively quickly maturing forwards over defenseman becomes.


I preferred Kopitar on draft day, but to call Bourdon a "fiasco" is downright silly...

Quoting tantalum from another thread:

"And let's not get down on the poor kid. There is 1 D-man in the NHL that comes from his draft year (Vlasic), and only 5 forwards from his draft year in the NHL (Crosby, Kopitar, Brule, Stastny, Latendresse). And arguably Brule and Latendresse are not ready for the NHL at this time either but their teams have decided another year in junior does them no good. Instead they get about 10 minutes a night and nothing more."

As much trouble as he's having getting his timing at the NHL level, I don't think there are many people out there who've seen his tools who don't think he's going to be a gem, and sooner rather than later, just not now.


Agreeed, I get really upset whenever people lash out at Bourdon. He is nineteen years old. Give him time. Did anyone actually expect him to step right into the lineup and log 25 minutes a night while quarterbacking the powerplay and killing penalties? He had a good training camp as an eighteen year old because there was absoloutely no pressure on him. There was no chance he was going to make the team so he was able to relax and show us what he can do.

Since then there have been huge expectations put on him to preform. He is suddenly expected to be our best defensive prospect since Ohlund and our equivalent to Phaneuf at a year younger. He's never played with men before, and although he isn't ready for the NHL yet, he hasn't been as terrible as every seems to beleive. Except for the San Jose game he's played as well as anyone could expect, and in that particular game he was paired with the trainwreck that is Rory Fitzpatrick.

Bourdon has the potential to be a franchise defender in ten years time. Let's let him develop at his own rate. We're only going to hurt his development for blaming to live up to the unrealistic expectations we dumped on him after the WJs last year.
User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Postby lil-scarface » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:00 pm

Delorme is not doing bad at all, also a few players liek Sergei Shirokov who has 8 points in 7 games, juraj Simek who has 24 oints in 16 games have come out of nowhere. grabner was off to a fantastic start but has slowed down, i am impressed with the prospects we have and am excited for the future
Carlos
User avatar
lil-scarface
AHL Prospect
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Postby cerios » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:41 pm

Why does calling the drafting of Bordoun a fiasco have to be unfair to Bordoun? Bordoun is not a bad prospect, I thought he was Canada's best defenseman at the WJC's which is to say I rated him higher then most. I still think he has great potential, I think that he could become a good #1 defenseman and will probably become a very good #2. But Kopitar is a special player, he will in all likelihood be a top ten center in this league and be far more valuable then Bordoun over his career.

I will say the same thing I said in another thread, saying Bordoun was a bad pick isn't the same as saying hes a bad prospect.

Owen Nolan was selected #1 overall in 1990, the same year Jagr was taken 5th. Does the fact that Jagr would have been a much better selection mean that Owen Nolan wasn't a very good player? I also don't think we should kid ourselves because if both these guys reach their career potentials that is very likely the kind of disparity we could be looking at.
cerios
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 11:43 am

Postby tantalum » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:07 am

cerios wrote:Why does calling the drafting of Bordoun a fiasco have to be unfair to Bordoun? Bordoun is not a bad prospect, I thought he was Canada's best defenseman at the WJC's which is to say I rated him higher then most. I still think he has great potential, I think that he could become a good #1 defenseman and will probably become a very good #2. But Kopitar is a special player, he will in all likelihood be a top ten center in this league and be far more valuable then Bordoun over his career.

I will say the same thing I said in another thread, saying Bordoun was a bad pick isn't the same as saying hes a bad prospect.

Owen Nolan was selected #1 overall in 1990, the same year Jagr was taken 5th. Does the fact that Jagr would have been a much better selection mean that Owen Nolan wasn't a very good player? I also don't think we should kid ourselves because if both these guys reach their career potentials that is very likely the kind of disparity we could be looking at.


BUt you don't know that and won't know that for another 15 years. Kopitar could hit a wall. Kopitar could get moody and sulky. Bourdon could become a #1 D-man that leads a team. You don't know that Kopitar will be #1 center and Bourdon won't be anything close.

I too wanted Kopitar at draft day because he was the player the organization was desperately in need of. A pure offensive talent. But to even suggest that one will have the better career or mean more to a team than the other at this point is premature to say the least.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Previous

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests