RoyalDude wrote:Go back and read the scathing scouting reports on Claude Giroux.
What's your point? Is it that there are hundreds of kids with question marks every single year and that sometimes one of them turns into a high end player - and that's why we should trade a high end player for one of the hundreds of kids who in 2013 (as one of the oldest and in theory most polished players in his draft class) has a boatload of question marks around his future?
It's simple for me, we can't fucking score and Mantha is a pure goal scorer, you can't teach that shit. I could care less about his faults, everyone is flawed, but Mantha has a talent that we don't have, pure goal scorer. Also, he is pretty good set up man as well as he is at the top in the Q in assists, he bleeds offence, I can live with his faults
Mantha leads the Q in scoring - 42 games, 43 goals, 47 assists. Good enough for me, not too mention that he is 6'5" and not to mention he can produce against the best players in the world of his age group the WJC's
Well if the Canucks are going to leave Vancouver and set up shop in Val d'Or then sign me up because Mantha can definitely produce in the Q. Maybe we should deal Dan Hamhuis for Mathieu Perrault while we're at it, he put up some pretty good numbers in the Q (even outscored your boy Claude Giroux), although mysteriously it hasn't translated over to the NHL all that well...
Dane Fox - who is not even a full year older than Mantha - is producing in the OHL at a similar rate to what Mantha is in the Q. If the draft cut-off was September 10 instead of September 15 Mantha would just be having a ho-hum, "yeah it's nice but of course he's ripping it up" overage year.
It's funny hearing CC Edler haters saying we could get a top 5 pick for him when these same folk run him through the ringer after each and every game for his mistakes and how much of an overrated D-man he is and that he ain't worth the money Gillis gave him, blah, blah, blah. Just research all of Meds post game posts, they are all about his disdain for Edler. "But we can get a top 5 pick for him!" Good luck with that
This again... I know it is really, really, really
easy to argue against a generalized group when you can project two inconsistent views onto everyone in it but I like Edler so it doesn't really do anything other than make you look like a self-indulgent old crank with a reading problem.
Do you not think that if Gillis had a chance to draft Monahan or Lindholm by just trading Edler for that chance he would have? What does that say about our GM if that were true? Even Gillis isn't that dense to turn that down, at least I hope not.
Who knows what exactly would have been on the table. Probably they would have wanted Edler plus something else, and who knows why that didn't pan out. Perhaps things would be different today but my point is that if Edler and a top pick in a great draft are even in the same conversation, there's no point in moving him for a project player (plus another project player who is further along in Smith).