Canucks at the Trade Deadline - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Addison Rae

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
58,532
10,753
Vancouver
He wasn't player yesterday against Edmonton either, its being described as a upper body injury so, no it's not really a head scratcher.

Well the previous poster suggested he was a healthy scratch. That's the only info I was aware of, thanks for clearing it up.
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
Call me crazy, but I don't think 28-year-old impending UFA David Clarkson who has scored more than 40 points exactly once in his career and is a winger would make very much difference to the Canucks. Not sure why he'd be worth paying a premium to acquire, honestly.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
call me crazy, but i don't think 28-year-old impending ufa david clarkson who has scored more than 40 points exactly once in his career and is a winger would make very much difference to the canucks. Not sure why he'd be worth paying a premium to acquire, honestly.

POWER FOWRARD. Powre forward> POWER FORWARD


HITS hard..... CHIPS IN GOALS. HART AND SOLE

*starts salivating and pounding chest*
 

NFITO

hockeyinsanity*****
Jun 19, 2002
28,022
0
www.hockeyinsanity.com
Call me crazy, but I don't think 28-year-old impending UFA David Clarkson who has scored more than 40 points exactly once in his career and is a winger would make very much difference to the Canucks. Not sure why he'd be worth paying a premium to acquire, honestly.

depends on how you evaluate his impact.

Yes, he's a 28 YR impending UFA who doesn't put up big numbers.

He's also a guy who is at or near the top of his team in hits, plays on both special teams, has put up 30 goals in the NHL, as recently as last year, and is just 28, so likely has several good years left in him.

Is he a viewed as a 3rd line producing rental player, or a gritty powerforward type top-6 forward with 20-25+ goal capability?
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
depends on how you evaluate his impact.

Yes, he's a 28 YR impending UFA who doesn't put up big numbers.

He's also a guy who is at or near the top of his team in hits, plays on both special teams, has put up 30 goals in the NHL, as recently as last year, and is just 28, so likely has several good years left in him.

Is he a viewed as a 3rd line producing rental player, or a gritty powerforward type top-6 forward with 20-25+ goal capability?

the problem is that everyone wants david clarkson because Power Forward and not because he's actually a really good hockey player. I'll bet if you gave people a choice between clarkson or clowe it wouldn't be the landslide that it really should be

he controls play really well, he plays against not-weak competition, doesn't even get favourable zone stars - but people evaluate him on size and hits

Call me crazy, but I don't think 28-year-old impending UFA David Clarkson who has scored more than 40 points exactly once in his career and is a winger would make very much difference to the Canucks. Not sure why he'd be worth paying a premium to acquire, honestly.

there really isn't a huge flaw in his game. he's been a +possession player for three years now (currently 60% this season). he's an ideal low ice time, high impact player

there's some doubts that he could say, compete against top lines and not have to get carried, but really if our first is sedins, second is kes ray hansen/schroeder, he would be an excellent third liner and a pretty ideal return for luongo
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
there really isn't a huge flaw in his game. he's been a +possession player for three years now (currently 60% this season). he's an ideal low ice time, high impact player

there's some doubts that he could say, compete against top lines and not have to get carried, but really if our first is sedins, second is kes ray hansen/schroeder, he would be an excellent third liner and a pretty ideal return for luongo

I'm not arguing that Clarkson is a bad player, just that I don't think for the acquisition cost would be useful given the Canucks needs. The Canucks have a lot of good two way wingers that play a strong possession game but aren't gamebreakers.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I'm not arguing that Clarkson is a bad player, just that I don't think for the acquisition cost would be useful given the Canucks needs. The Canucks have a lot of good two way wingers that play a strong possession game but aren't gamebreakers.

Clarkson with the Sedins could put up 35-40 goals. He's also tough enough that he would stand up for them when they get picked on.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
Clarkson with the Sedins could put up 35-40 goals. He's also tough enough that he would stand up for them when they get picked on.

on the other hand, this might be the exact opposite of the correct application of a player like david clarkson

I'm not arguing that Clarkson is a bad player, just that I don't think for the acquisition cost would be useful given the Canucks needs. The Canucks have a lot of good two way wingers that play a strong possession game but aren't gamebreakers.

the canucks have four gamebreakers - goalie, kesler, and the sedins. they don't really NEED more - a good possession winger is a great addition, assuming they can find any third-line capable centre as well
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
Clarkson throws his weight around, but he's a 6'1 200 pound forward. He's not the second coming of Keith Tkachuk, guys.

And Verviticus, if you think the Canucks have enough gamebreakers, we'll agree to disagree. Canucks are a team of possession players that have struggled to score when teams clog up their zone game in the post-season. They need need a one-shot scorer -- in a dream world, I'd love them to add a guy like Phil Kessel.

Canucks also have a borderline bottom 10 offense this year...
 

ahmon

Registered User
Jun 25, 2002
10,308
1,841
Visit site
Clarkson with the Sedins could put up 35-40 goals. He's also tough enough that he would stand up for them when they get picked on.

I think you are overrating Clarkson.

He's definitely a good fighter (middleweight).

I think he had a great year, but he is not much more than 40-50 pt winger.

Its a buy high scenario.



One team Gillis should focus on is the Flyers. Likely not making playoffs, team with a boatload of talent up front.

They need dman, we have an abundance of dman (specifically on the left side)
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
If Holmgren is dumb enough to think the Flyers can make the playoffs, they might be interested in Ballard. They just lost Mez for the year and Coburn went out with a separated shoulder.
 

canuck4life16

It what it is-mccann
May 29, 2008
13,380
0
Vancity
Clarkson throws his weight around, but he's a 6'1 200 pound forward. He's not the second coming of Keith Tkachuk, guys.

And Verviticus, if you think the Canucks have enough gamebreakers, we'll agree to disagree. Canucks are a team of possession players that have struggled to score when teams clog up their zone game in the post-season. They need need a one-shot scorer -- in a dream world, I'd love them to add a guy like Phil Kessel.

Canucks also have a borderline bottom 10 offense this year...

last year King got into the playoff with the lowest GF of all playoff teams only team that never got 200 GF
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
And Verviticus, if you think the Canucks have enough gamebreakers, we'll agree to disagree. Canucks are a team of possession players that have struggled to score when teams clog up their zone game in the post-season. They need need a one-shot scorer -- in a dream world, I'd love them to add a guy like Phil Kessel.

Canucks also have a borderline bottom 10 offense this year...

i mean everyone wants to add a phil kessel. you cant possibly think there's a team with "too many gamebreakers"

the point is, the best teams are at heart, possession teams with a few gamebreakers. pittsburgh is the only successful model that isn't, but the kings, the bruins, chicago etc are all possession first teams
 

Frankiedarling

Registered User
Jan 27, 2012
829
5
Seattle, Washington
No one should look to Pitts for how to style a team. They got the right picks in two utterly insane drafts.

When you have the two best centers in the world you can do whatever the hell you want. It's just not right to make comparisons there, because no one else has the same chance they did.
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
i mean everyone wants to add a phil kessel. you cant possibly think there's a team with "too many gamebreakers"

the point is, the best teams are at heart, possession teams with a few gamebreakers. pittsburgh is the only successful model that isn't, but the kings, the bruins, chicago etc are all possession first teams

Where did I say they weren't? I just said Clarkson at his cost would be a largely redundant asset -- he doesn't do much that the Canucks don't already have in spades. He's a pretty good player, but I'd rather see the Canucks add a shooter.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
Where did I say they weren't? I just said Clarkson at his cost would be a largely redundant asset -- he doesn't do much that the Canucks don't already have in spades. He's a pretty good player, but I'd rather see the Canucks add a shooter.

what i mean is - if "i really want a gamebreaker" is a wish to improve the team, it's not a very useful one. it's a thing that everyone wants. it's not a want so much as it is implied that if you dont want one, you're just a moron

thats like saying "i want to win games". well yeah.

if of the available players within reason, you want a shoot first, elite shot guy, then your wishlist should start with like, alex tanguay or whatever. personally, im happy with any good hockey player regardless of role as long as they can literally get ice time (so a good 5th defencemen is largely unimportant to me). you would think "good hockey players" is implied as strongly as "gamebreakers" but uh, there are a lot of people here that hate on good hockey players because they're fickle bad hockey evaluators

No one should look to Pitts for how to style a team. They got the right picks in two utterly insane drafts.

When you have the two best centers in the world you can do whatever the hell you want. It's just not right to make comparisons there, because no one else has the same chance they did.

i'd have made this point, but it's pretty much made in the description of the successful teams. when the ratio is like 1-6 its not The Method
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->