Confirmed with Link: [VAN/SJ] Hansen(20% ret.) for Goldobin, Cond'l '17 4th (becomes 1st if SJ wins Cup)

[Kryten]

If you are counting pro games in other leagues Puljujarvi is at a 120 pro games, guess he should be out of the league by now.

Dahlen will also be past 120 after he plays in the AHL next year, guess that's a bad sign as well.

not considering age

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

If you are counting pro games in other leagues Puljujarvi is at a 120 pro games, guess he should be out of the league by now.

Dahlen will also be past 120 after he plays in the AHL next year, guess that's a bad sign as well.

Do you not think puljujarvi is having a disappointing season relative to expectations?

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I think that's understandable to want that but completely unrealistic.

You get legitimate no-bust young 1st line forward talents maybe for a player like Tanev or other top 2/3 D, not two playoffs of 2nd/3rd line tweeners like Hansen.

Barring a few trades where prospects were traded (either in horrible widely panned deals like Forsberg for Erat) or prospects that have Goldobin's value all of a sudden boom and improve, you don't get that kind of value for players like Hansen. I love the guy but no. It sounds like you'd prefer a roll of the dice chance for a 1st liner with a late 1st instead but that's a complete lottery just as well as Goldobin is...

Goldobin becoming a young 45-55 point second liner for the next 7 years and I absolutely will consider this trade a success. And yeah, absolutely, if Goldobin doesn't become a non-forced regular in our lineup 20 or so games into next season, I will become critical of the trade (and more so, once again our prospect and pro scouting).

I didn't ask for a no bust 1st line talent. I went out of my way to say that I wasn't expecting that.. Maybe that was in the other thread; I am losing track.

A draft pick has a higher chance of becoming an elite player than Goldobin does, in my opinion.

Maybe it's 10% instead of 1% but higher is higher.

If Goldobin becomes sven baertschi then the trade was a waste in my opinion, even if it still got us a marginally decent player.

 

[canwincup]

Weak trolling not considering age

Not trolling, just pointing out how using pro games can be an unreliable way to judge a prospects development.

 

[Kryten]

Not trolling, just pointing out how using pro games can be an unreliable way to judge a prospects development.

Understood, i shall remove it. I think it is a good way to judge post draft but not predraft since they are usually not givin 1st line minutes or opportunities

 

[canwincup]

Understood, i shall remove it. I think it is a good way to judge post draft but not predraft since they are usually not givin 1st line minutes or opportunities

How many years do you think would be reasonable for Dahlen to play in the AHL? Most people think he needs two years, would that be a failure if it takes him two years in the AHL?

To keep up with Goldobin, Dahlen needs 44 points in 60 AHL games next year. Not an easy task

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

How many years do you think would be reasonable for Dahlen to play in the AHL? Most people think he needs two years, would that be a failure if it takes him two years in the AHL?

To keep up with Goldobin, Dahlen needs 44 points in 60 AHL games next year. Not an easy task

This black and white stuff is really irritating.

The longer he is down there, the lower his odds. Is that not reasonable?

Of he spends two full seasons do there he will not be a "failure" but it will be a little disappointing and his odds will be lower than if he only spends one, in all likelihood.

There are no hard lines in the sand, no absolutes. You are taking about an estimate of probability which is non refutable.

 

[Kryten]

How many years do you think would be reasonable for Dahlen to play in the AHL? Most people think he needs two years, would that be a failure if it takes him two years in the AHL?

Well he was drafted out of Europe so it is a bit different but I would guess atleast a full AHL year next year then only used for call ups in the 2nd year if he deserves it. Maybe he has a great camp in that 2nd year but no need to rush him if he isnt ready. He would still be in junior next year if he was a north american draftee anyway

 

[Jannik Hansen]

I didn't ask for a no bust 1st line talent. I went out of my way to say that I wasn't expecting that.. Maybe that was in the other thread; I am losing track.

A draft pick has a higher chance of becoming an elite player than Goldobin does, in my opinion.

Maybe it's 10% instead of 1% but higher is higher.

If Goldobin becomes sven baertschi then the trade was a waste in my opinion, even if it still got us a marginally decent player.

A San Jose 1st will likely be in the bottom 5 of the first round the next two years. I like Goldobin's ceiling more than the late first round ranked guys this year. Don't know much about next years class other than Dahlin and Svechnikov.

 

[canwincup]

Well he was drafted out of Europe so it is a bit different but I would guess atleast a full AHL year next year then only used for call ups in the 2nd year if he deserves it. Maybe he has a great camp in that 2nd year but no need to rush him if he isnt ready. He would still be in junior next year if he was a north american draftee anyway

He's a 1997 born player, same year as Boeser. He would be eligible to play in the AHL next year if he was a CHL player.

 

[Kryten]

He's a 1997 born player, same year as Boeser. He would be eligible to play in the AHL next year if he was a CHL player.

I was under the assumption that you needed to be 20 before the AHL season started to be eligable to play for CHLers atleast

 

[canwincup]

This black and white stuff is really irritating.

The longer he is down there, the lower his odds. Is that not reasonable?

Of he spends two full seasons do there he will not be a "failure" but it will be a little disappointing and his odds will be lower than if he only spends one, in all likelihood.

There are no hard lines in the sand, no absolutes. You are taking about an estimate of probability which is non refutable.

Yeah that's fair, but I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand.

Also you keep mentioning how a 1st round draft pick has a possibility of becoming a better player than Goldobin, of course that's true. A 6th round pick has the possibility to become a better player than Goldobin....but

With respected media/scouting members continuously saying that this is a weak draft, I don't see why Goldobin's potential isn't higher than a player selected late in the first round this year.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Yeah that's fair, but I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand.

Also you keep mentioning how a 1st round draft pick has a possibility of becoming a better player than Goldobin, of course that's true. A 6th round pick has the possibility to become a better player than Goldobin....but

With respected media/scouting members continuously saying that this is a weak draft, I don't see why Goldobin's potential isn't higher than a player selected late in the first round this year.

There is no way to prove it one way or the other. I have tried to choose my words carefully in saying that I would prefer a draft pick. If you prefer the player who has already played 115 AHL games then that is your prerogative. I have explained my reasoning countless times and there is no way to settle it definitively especially since we did not know which draft choices were available.

I do not think the Canucks need another player who is close to being waiver eligible. I want to stock up on prospects. That is my preference. To walk into the draft still a pick short and having added only one U20 prospect is a disappointment for me, especially considering we traded a quality player with term.

 

[Petrichor]

There is no way to prove it one way or the other. I have tried to choose my words carefully in saying that I would prefer a draft pick. If you prefer the player who has already played 115 AHL games then that is your prerogative. I have explained my reasoning countless times and there is no way to settle it definitively especially since we did not know which draft choices were available.

I do not think the Canucks need another player who is close to being waiver eligible. I want to stock up on prospects. That is my preference. To walk into the draft still a pick short and having added only one U20 prospect is a disappointment for me, especially considering we traded a quality player with term.

The 2017 draft is reportedly one of the weakest in the past few years. Patrick is considered the best prospect, and he doesn't look like a Matthews or even Laine type player. Maybe at best, a Dubois type player. Certainly not a franchise player, but a very good player to build around. As a result, it's much smarter to get prospects than 2017 picks at this point.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

The 2017 draft is reportedly one of the weakest in the past few years. Patrick is considered the best prospect, and he doesn't look like a Matthews or even Laine type player. Maybe at best, a Dubois type player. Certainly not a franchise player, but a very good player to build around. As a result, it's much smarter to get prospects than 2017 picks at this point.

I respect this opinion. I disagree with it.

 

[Cupless44]

This black and white stuff is really irritating.

The longer he is down there, the lower his odds. Is that not reasonable?

Of he spends two full seasons do there he will not be a "failure" but it will be a little disappointing and his odds will be lower than if he only spends one, in all likelihood.

There are no hard lines in the sand, no absolutes. You are taking about an estimate of probability which is non refutable.

Non black and white thinking is also looking at the context of breaking into the line up of a Stanley Cup contender. The Sharks have a deep forward group and the Barracudas in the AHL are stacked, they won 14 games Ina row.

There are some very good young players to compete with for a call up. Kevin Lebanc was averaging 2 points a game when he was called up. Timo Meier is their best prospect, drafted 9th overall. Those are the 2 players called up over Goldobin.

For those that want to feel better about this not being a Vey, I suggest listening to the Peter Deboer interview on 1040. Spoke pretty highly of Goldobin and said he hated to give him up but they are in Cup mode.

 

[Verviticus]

Yeah that's fair, but I'm not the one drawing lines in the sand.

Also you keep mentioning how a 1st round draft pick has a possibility of becoming a better player than Goldobin, of course that's true. A 6th round pick has the possibility to become a better player than Goldobin....but

With respected media/scouting members continuously saying that this is a weak draft, I don't see why Goldobin's potential isn't higher than a player selected late in the first round this year.

i would wager that over a billion realities, goldobin will become a better player more than 50% of the time than, say, the player picked at #30. that doesnt actually mean that goldobin will be a better asset at that percentage for the vancouver canucks. its therefore pretty easy to - depending on direction and quality of management (little, and 0) - justify getting the youngest possible assets in order to minimize their exposure to this front office

For those that want to feel better about this not being a Vey, I suggest listening to the Peter Deboer interview on 1040. Spoke pretty highly of Goldobin and said he hated to give him up but they are in Cup mode.

deboer's opinion has some but not a whole ton of value - he's probably an intelligent and informed guy subject to various biases like any human being and without knowing him its impossible to account for them. what he presents as his opinion, to me as a vancouver canucks fan, is completely worthless. your information to actually judge a player is obfuscated multiple times by this point

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

i would wager that over a billion realities, goldobin will become a better player more than 50% of the time than, say, the player picked at #30. that doesnt actually mean that goldobin will be a better asset at that percentage for the vancouver canucks. its therefore pretty easy to - depending on direction and quality of management (little, and 0) - justify getting the youngest possible assets in order to minimize their exposure to this front office

Moreover, the fact that the Canucks wanted this player, given their terrible track record, actually maybe biased my opinion more towards the negative.

 

[Verviticus]

yeah. any given draft pick has at least some chance of not being chosen by them. players are locked as soon as they're traded for

 

[Yossarian54]

It's all about willie IMO. If he doesn't give him a chance I don't think we can judge till we have a new coach

Agree.

Won't be judging him until mid next-season if Willie takes a dislike to him this season.

 

[Pip]

The 2017 draft is reportedly one of the weakest in the past few years. Patrick is considered the best prospect, and he doesn't look like a Matthews or even Laine type player. Maybe at best, a Dubois type player. Certainly not a franchise player, but a very good player to build around. As a result, it's much smarter to get prospects than 2017 picks at this point.

Just because the top few players aren't labelled as superstar doesn't mean you can get some gems in the first round though. Pretty much every draft has them.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I wonder if there is any way at all, if the Canucks could trade a veteran player for a prospect, and the fans here would not overwhelmingly think it is a homerun.

 

[me2]

For those that want to feel better about this not being a Vey, I suggest listening to the Peter Deboer interview on 1040. Spoke pretty highly of Goldobin and said he hated to give him up but they are in Cup mode.

I'm pretty sure the Kings talked up Vey too. I wouldn't read much into a team saying nice things, the usually talk players up on the way out the door. Never hurts to be nice.

I don't put much weight into it, positive or negative. Well know more when we see him play, I'm pretty excited to see him, I love the skill he brings.

 

[PG Canuck]

The 2017 draft is reportedly one of the weakest in the past few years. Patrick is considered the best prospect, and he doesn't look like a Matthews or even Laine type player. Maybe at best, a Dubois type player. Certainly not a franchise player, but a very good player to build around. As a result, it's much smarter to get prospects than 2017 picks at this point.

You guys hear "weak draft" and assume every pick after the top 10 isn't going to become close to an NHL player, or even on par with Goldobin by his age. Which I think is ridiculous. There are 'weak drafts' but there aren't any drafts that produced nothing after the top 20ish players picked like people almost make it out to be.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

You guys hear "weak draft" and assume every pick after the top 10 isn't going to become close to an NHL player, or even on par with Goldobin by his age. Which I think is ridiculous. There are 'weak drafts' but there aren't any drafts that produced nothing after the top 20ish players picked like people almost make it out to be.

Yeah, it is kind of weird to talk about how good Nolan Patrick is as if that is in any way relevant to the pick the Canucks might have received.

I am not sure I would trust anyone who claims to know the draft so well as to be able to rate the quality of the second-half of the second round in relation to other drafts.

Regardless, there are always diamonds in the rough. It is a total crapshoot as to getting them. It should go without saying that the more picks you have though, the better your odds of getting a Nikita Kucherov (58th overall in a "weak draft.")