Lol and lucic.
- manvanfan

We could be here all day talking about our lack of eyes on the WHL.

Erne, Hartman, de la rose.
No more drafting bpa because that usually turns into a player dropping that no one else wants for a reason.
- manvanfan

I'm not saying to follow ISS rankings, I mean the Cnucks own rankings. Stick to your board and draft the best prospect available is the way to go.

I remember watching Brendan Gallagher playing for the Giants for a few years and thinking the guy was awesome. He literally seemed to do everything and be everywhere, even dropped the gloves. How our scouts missed him when he was playing on our porch for several years baffles me.

Glad we picked McNally and Polasek ahead of him.
- AlexF

I like McNally. The problem is he wont play pro until he finishes shool.

We could be here all day talking about our lack of eyes on the WHL.
- AlexF

True but if the scouts suck then you can't really say much. Gillis needs to hire some people he can actually trust. And I believe that the OHL has actually produced the most current regular NHL players for all those here that want the Canucks to go heavy in the WHL.

I'm not saying to follow ISS rankings, I mean the Cnucks own rankings. Stick to your board and draft the best prospect available is the way to go.
- Nucker101

I don't mind bpa but I think it should be used in a way to address needs. If we have a lack of depth at winger, draft best winger. If we need a power forward, draft the best power forward. No sense in drafting a defencemen if we have 8 solid defencemen prospects already because he "fell" to us.

Who the f@ck does't Mildew piss off. Fighting the puck in your feet is not good when your tall. Thats like me @ 5'10" playing with a peewee stick
- thundachunk

Is that what your wife calls it?

I don't mind bpa but I think it should be used in a way to address needs. If we have a lack of depth at winger, draft best winger. If we need a power forward, draft the best power forward. No sense in drafting a defencemen if we have 8 solid defencemen prospects already because he "fell" to us.
- manvanfan

Thankfully, we project to have needs everywhere.

We could be here all day talking about our lack of eyes on the WHL.
- AlexF

Yep its worse for those of us who watch the W live and see these kids game after game and know the true value.

Was reading some interesting thoughts today on Canucks Army and Botchford especially in light of the current rumors swirling around Lu to NYI.

The gist of the suggestion was that Gillis should be looking to take advantage that he is in a wealthy market and use the 2 compliance buyouts to essentially "buy" new talent, rather than simply dumping existing talent or making hockey trades that bleed you in one area to heal you in another.

The Lu to NYI for a buyout (Rick D) with a prospect(s) coming back was one example. The other was possibly trading Ballard and retaining some of his salary (say 2m) as a Ballard for 2 years at 2.2m per could open up a market where at 4.2m there would be none. In their example the 2nd compliance buy-out could then be used to pick up a Scotty Upshall (to be bought out) + prospect or pick.

The fact that the new CBA allows for salary retention and 2 free buy-outs should theoretically tilt the advantage to those that have the most money. It was an interesting idea anyway.

I don't mind bpa but I think it should be used in a way to address needs. If we have a lack of depth at winger, draft best winger. If we need a power forward, draft the best power forward. No sense in drafting a defencemen if we have 8 solid defencemen prospects already because he "fell" to us.
- manvanfan

Okay, but that player isn't going to be a regular until 2-4 years down the road and needs change every year. Just a couple of years ago before Tanev and Corrado emerged, everyone was saying that the Canucks had to take a d-man in the first. Not every first rounder will pan out so why take a prospect that you have rated lower to hurt your chances of getting a future NHL'er?

Okay, but that player isn't going to be a regular until 2-4 years down the road and needs change every year. Just a couple of years ago before Tanev and Corrado emerged, everyone was saying that the Canucks had to take a d-man in the first. Not every first rounder will pan out so why take a prospect that you have rated lower to hurt your chances of getting a future NHL'er?
- Nucker101

Agreed. When drafting that high up you should always go for the BPA overall.

Was reading some interesting thoughts today on Canucks Army and Botchford especially in light of the current rumors swirling around Lu to NYI.

The gist of the suggestion was that Gillis should be looking to take advantage that he is in a wealthy market and use the 2 compliance buyouts to essentially "buy" new talent, rather than simply dumping existing talent. The Lu to NYI for a buyout (Rick D) with a prospect(s) coming back was one example. The other was possibly trading Ballard and retaining some of his salary (say 2m) as a Ballard for 2 years at 2.2m per could open up a market where at 4.2m there would be none. In their example the 2nd compliance buy-out could then be used to pick up a Scotty Upshall + prospect or pick.

The fact that the new CBA allows for salary retention and 2 free buy-outs should theoretically tilt the advantage to those that have the most money. It was an interesting idea anyway.
- AlexF

I can't even express how awful an idea that is. It basically means we're paying Upshall $5.5 million. I'd MUCH rather keep Ballard.

As for using our position to acquire talent by buying out contracts like DiPietro, it makes a ton of sense if we're getting A LOT back. It basically means we're buying whichever prospect comes back for $24 million dollars. If Luongo is a part of that deal we're taking an even BIGGER risk with all the recapture possibilities down the road.

I can't even express how awful an idea that is. It basically means we're paying Upshall $5.5 million. I'd MUCH rather keep Ballard.

As for using our position to acquire talent by buying out contracts like DiPietro, it makes a ton of sense if we're getting A LOT back. It basically means we're buying whichever prospect comes back for $24 million dollars. If Luongo is a part of that deal we're taking an even BIGGER risk with all the recapture possibilities down the road.
- DrChristianTroy

See my edits. I knew that would be read wrong. They meant to trade for Upshall to then buy him out whilst also netting a few picks and/or prospects in return.

Lu to Tor for Rielly, Gardiner and a first

Schneider and Edler to Philly for Bryz, a first Coburn and Couturier

Bieksa and Hansen and Tor 1st to Pit for Letang and Kunitz

The rights to Barker to Edmonton for RNH

.
.
.

I can't even express how awful an idea that is. It basically means we're paying Upshall $5.5 million. I'd MUCH rather keep Ballard.

As for using our position to acquire talent by buying out contracts like DiPietro, it makes a ton of sense if we're getting A LOT back. It basically means we're buying whichever prospect comes back for $24 million dollars. If Luongo is a part of that deal we're taking an even BIGGER risk with all the recapture possibilities down the road.
- DrChristianTroy

yes to this. worry about recapture in 10 years.

See my edits. I knew that would be read wrong. They meant to trade for Upshall to then buy him out whilst also netting a few picks and/or prospects in return.
- AlexF

I think if we can do that we should totally take advantage of small market teams. the problem is we then need to find someone who will take ballard and booth for nothing.... maybe a team like preds could use booth for futures, maybe a switch of 7th round picks

See my edits. I knew that would be read wrong. They meant to trade for Upshall to then buy him out whilst also netting a few picks and/or prospects in return.
- AlexF

Ahhh... I do like the idea of using our position as a profitable business to discard of other teams junk... BUT it's expensive, so they better be willing to part with big time talent... Gillis can't settle for prospects who might or might not pan out if he's doing them a multi million dollar favor.

yes to this. worry about recapture in 10 years.
- allen_gamble

Personally I can't even see how the recapture clause is legal. It was signed under a different CBA. That would be like parking your car in neutral zone only to come back later to a fat fine amd be told the rules had changed while you were away.

yes to this. worry about recapture in 10 years.
- allen_gamble

You can't afford to worry about recapture in 10 years. How pissed would we all be if suddenly, out of nowhere, our team had to be dismantled because of a $7+ million dollar Luongo recapture penalty?

Personally I can't even see how the recapture clause is legal. It was signed under a different CBA. That would be like parking your car in neutral zone only to come back later to a fat fine amd be told the rules had changed while you were away.
- AlexF

I couldnt agree more. I think its absolutely stupid and I have no idea why any of the big market teams agreed to sign off on it.

Ahhh... I do like the idea of using our position as a profitable business to discard of other teams junk... BUT it's expensive, so they better be willing to part with big time talent... Gillis can't settle for prospects who might or might not pan out if he's doing them a multi million dollar favor.
- DrChristianTroy

Exactly. I thought it was one of those out-of-the-box ideas that might be required at this stage of our organization. Clearly the financially weaker teams (especially those in financial stress) would be the intended targets and also more receptive to what a boon having another org pick up your bill would be.

You can't afford to worry about recapture in 10 years. How pissed would we all be if suddenly, out of nowhere, our team had to be dismantled because of a $7+ million dollar Luongo recapture penalty?
- DrChristianTroy

only because the chances of any team being a cup contender for 10 years is slim to none. if we have zero chance to win the cup who cares about the penalty. all in all recapture is (frank)ing stupid and i have no clue how it was passed.

Ahhh... I do like the idea of using our position as a profitable business to discard of other teams junk... BUT it's expensive, so they better be willing to part with big time talent... Gillis can't settle for prospects who might or might not pan out if he's doing them a multi million dollar favor.
- DrChristianTroy

It's been suggested that Aquilini is not interested in buying out any contract, so the whole idea might just be moot......

We all know that booth and Ballard are good players, just not for AV. I say we keep them because their stock can't get any lower and dump them when they start playing the way they can......provided we can make some other moves to retain them like trading Lu or Edler. I know Edler had a bad year but I'm willing to bet more than a few GM's covet this guy.....

You can't afford to worry about recapture in 10 years. How pissed would we all be if suddenly, out of nowhere, our team had to be dismantled because of a $7+ million dollar Luongo recapture penalty?
- DrChristianTroy

trade schneider, keep Luongo, only other way to not be worried about it is to buy out Luongo.

It's been suggested that Aquilini is not interested in buying out any contract, so the whole idea might just be moot......

We all know that booth and Ballard are good players, just not for AV. I say we keep them because their stock can't get any lower and dump them when they start playing the way they can......provided we can make some other moves to retain them like trading Lu or Edler. I know Edler had a bad year but I'm willing to bet more than a few GM's covet this guy.....
- chompsey

so you're going to trade edler and do what with Luongo? lol. You're going to be trying to fill a roster with about 5 mil and 7 spots. If you move Luongo without eating a huge chunk of salary you're getting nothing back.