100% I hate a small d-core. I’m a bit old fashioned but I think a d-core that intimidates and makes opposing players think twice when entering the offensive zone is the best kind of defence you can have. Same goes for players standing in front of your goalie. There has to be a price that’s paid for loitering. You just don’t get that from small d-men.
- bloatedmosquito

Little combination of both. I think one small D is fine, as long as he brings exceptional status on other parts of the game.

Mario Ferraro 5'11" 185 Lbs in SJ 5th in the hits for D this year.
Orlov 5'11" 210 44th in hits.

Everybody else is over 6'

In saying that Nate Schmidt is 2" taller than Hughes but had 3 less hits.

If someone wants to pay EP $12m - $14m a season and EP and his agent sign it then good riddance. I’ll help pack his bags and personally drive him to the airport.
- bloatedmosquito

Well, if they offer him a one year deal, can bring the cap hit down after that on a longer deal.

Basically just (frank)ing over the Canucks and their cap situation. I doubt any team would... but it's not impossible to think it.

That's a lot of first round picks.

I would think 8.7 would be max offer for Petey.

$6,544,641 – $8,726,188: 2021 first, second, and third round picks
$8,726,189 – $10,907,735: Two first round picks*, 2021 second and third round picks
$10,907,736 and over: Four first round picks**
- manvanfan

It'd basically be to gouge the Canucks in their cap situation. I think 8.7 would be easy for the Canucks to match.

A team giving up 4 late first round picks for Petey wouldn't be the worst. He's one of the top young players in the league, only going up.

Don't think it'll happen, just read it elsewhere and thought it'd be a change of discussion for a bit.

It'd basically be to gouge the Canucks in their cap situation. I think 8.7 would be easy for the Canucks to match.

A team giving up 4 late first round picks for Petey wouldn't be the worst. He's one of the top young players in the league, only going up.

Don't think it'll happen, just read it elsewhere and thought it'd be a change of discussion for a bit.
- NewYorkNuck

The numbers are based on a 5 year deal I believe even if it's an 7 year deal... I think. That's why MTL gave Aho a 5 year deal. Was paying 1st, 2nd, 3rd for Aho only. Not really enough.

Neem usually gets upset when I say we need bigger guys, as the team has their quota for midgets and flyweights.

How many more midgets would you like to see on this team?

Because I would like them to become a cup contender eventually.

Also, I have watched the other Hughes kid, he is just as brutal defensively as the one on the Canucks.
- Reubenkincade

I didnt realize there was a "midget" per team quota/recipe for success that teams followed? Or is this unique to the Canucks? So should there be a drafting size/weight limit restriction put in place? Kent Johnson is 165lbs so is he off limits now as well? If we draft McTavish this year and hit the quota - then next year are we allowed to draft Matthew Savoie's lightweight/midget-ish frame??

Also, in terms of the Hughes brothers, do Luke and Jack have the same gene as Quinn? you know the one that doesn't allow them to develop/improve passed the age of 22? Or will they just all be stuck at sucking the rest of their careers?

The numbers are based on a 5 year deal I believe even if it's an 7 year deal... I think. That's why MTL gave Aho a 5 year deal. Was paying 1st, 2nd, 3rd for Aho only. Not really enough.
- manvanfan

It's based on a 5 year deal if it's over 5 years. Could offer sheet a 1 or 2 year deal with high $$ and resign him long term after that.

I don't think it's likely... but would be pretty funny (in a Shakespearean way) if it happened to the Canucks

Little combination of both. I think one small D is fine, as long as he brings exceptional status on other parts of the game.

Mario Ferraro 5'11" 185 Lbs in SJ 5th in the hits for D this year.
Orlov 5'11" 210 44th in hits.

Everybody else is over 6'

In saying that Nate Schmidt is 2" taller than Hughes but had 3 less hits.
- manvanfan

As I said, I’m old fashioned so I have a hard time accepting small d-men in any role other than offensive production. My problem, not reality.

It's based on a 5 year deal if it's over 5 years. Could offer sheet a 1 or 2 year deal with high $$ and resign him long term after that.

I don't think it's likely... but would be pretty funny (in a Shakespearean way) if it happened to the Canucks
- NewYorkNuck

3 or 4 year deal at 10-11M very possible. Van could still match that though. Nobody offer sheeted Barzal last season. They were in a poor cap situation.

If someone wants to pay EP $12m - $14m a season and EP and his agent sign it then good riddance. I’ll help pack his bags and personally drive him to the airport.
- bloatedmosquito

I'm riding shotgun.

I didnt realize there was a "midget" per team quota/recipe for success that teams followed? Or is this unique to the Canucks? So should there be a drafting size/weight limit restriction put in place? Kent Johnson is 165lbs so is he off limits now as well? If we draft McTavish this year and hit the quota - then next year are we allowed to draft Matthew Savoie's lightweight/midget-ish frame??

Also, in terms of the Hughes brothers, do Luke and Jack have the same gene as Quinn? you know the one that doesn't allow them to develop/improve passed the age of 22? Or will they just all be stuck at sucking the rest of their careers?
- Brooks_Light

The 1 bold, no this isn't unique to the Canucks, the Edmonton Oilers have been trying this out, how has that been working out?

The 2nd bold, yes.

100% I hate a small d-core. I’m a bit old fashioned but I think a d-core that intimidates and makes opposing players think twice when entering the offensive zone is the best kind of defence you can have. Same goes for players standing in front of your goalie. There has to be a price that’s paid for loitering. You just don’t get that from small d-men.
- bloatedmosquito

Tampa, Carolina, Vegas all have HUGE D cores
Colorado's about the same size as the Canucks

As I said, I’m old fashioned so I have a hard time accepting small d-men in any role other than offensive production. My problem, not reality.
- bloatedmosquito

The year they did draft a soft skilled D man, with the next pick they did go with a throw back defender.
https://twitter.com/Chris...tatus/1383135454422134784

3 or 4 year deal at 10-11M very possible. Van could still match that though. Nobody offer sheeted Barzal last season. They were in a poor cap situation.
- manvanfan

I think Van would match most offers... but it'd be more about screwing the Canucks and their cap space. For the team, losing another 3-4 mil in cap space this offseason would be a pretty huge blow to whatever JB has in mind.

It takes Petey to sign it too. I don't think he would. He realizes that extra money is better spent on the team.

The 1 bold, no this isn't unique to the Canucks, the Edmonton Oilers have been trying this out, how has that been working out?

The 2nd bold, yes.
- Reubenkincade

I know Golfing owns a crystal ball but I heard a rumor you own a Delorean? If that's in fact true, what year is your "sports almanac" from?

Tampa, Carolina, Vegas all have HUGE D cores
Colorado's about the same size as the Canucks
- Brooks_Light

Ya, but they're fast and they actually hit. Myers is a gentle giant who takes more stick infraction penalties than hard hitting penalties

The year they did draft a soft skilled D man, with the next pick they did go with a throw back defender.
- manvanfan

Gunnarson?

I know Golfing owns a crystal ball but I heard a rumor you own a Delorean? If that's in fact true, what year is your "sports almanac" from?
- Brooks_Light

I think Rathbone is going to be our quote midget defenseman. Hopefully the other midget defenseman fetches the Canucks a nice return.

Gunnarson?
- Reubenkincade

you do understand that reuby's position is about toughness and recognizing the deficiencies on the current team. i don't follow amateur hockey/drafts so i don't really have an opinion. i've always maintained that BPA is the best way to go in the first 3ish rounds. but i do recognize the value in seeing what the team has (types of players as well as positionally) in order to recognize the team's needs. you can disagree which is perfectly reasonable but he does have a point.

toronto is a very skilled team as well.
- RealityChecker

lol was just bugging Ruby and his obsession with Hughes.

I like the goaltender-out theory my self. Build that way and good thing will come. Time and place for BPA mostly when you pick top 5-10 but outside of that I'm a fill your needs guy. We need two bigger, mobile dmen to replace Edler and Schmidt (if bloated says he's leaving lol) and go from there. I'm not worried about Hughes at all. Karlssons +- was brutal for a bit too and he was nominated for Norris trophies. I see Hughes on asimilar path once the D is rounded out around him. Myers could go to Seattle at this point for all I care. I would prefer to keep Schmidt to see what he could do with the right support over an 82 game sched.

But as far as BPA goes its a time/place thing and right now we need a 3LC and a RHD in the worst way. Fill those needs and go from there. If Hughes or Clarke fall to us in the draft it's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Where's Vantel when we need to discuss what a dud Suzuki is?!
- neem55

What did you guys do to the guy lol He was always a regular on here. Total Melt down?

As I said, I’m old fashioned so I have a hard time accepting small d-men in any role other than offensive production. My problem, not reality.
- bloatedmosquito

It's not as old fashioned as you think. Even Tampa, who seems to be a gold standard for small players, has a bigger D corps. I'm with you. I want some size on the back end.

It's not as old fashioned as you think. Even Tampa, who seems to be a gold standard for small players, has a bigger D corps. I'm with you. I want some size on the back end.
- Load Management

Just because they have size doesn't mean they will use it.

in this draft might want to stay away from Hughes and Clarke then.

lol was just bugging Ruby and his obsession with Hughes.

I like the goaltender-out theory my self. Build that way and good thing will come. Time and place for BPA mostly when you pick top 5-10 but outside of that I'm a fill your needs guy. We need two bigger, mobile dmen to replace Edler and Schmidt (if bloated says he's leaving lol) and go from there. I'm not worried about Hughes at all. Karlssons +- was brutal for a bit too and he was nominated for Norris trophies. I see Hughes on asimilar path once the D is rounded out around him. Myers could go to Seattle at this point for all I care. I would prefer to keep Schmidt to see what he could do with the right support over an 82 game sched.

But as far as BPA goes its a time/place thing and right now we need a 3LC and a RHD in the worst way. Fill those needs and go from there. If Hughes or Clarke fall to us in the draft it's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.
- LordHumungous

Sounds to me like Canucks have at least 3 defensemen that need propping up, Hughes, Schmidt, Rathbone.
Although, I do believe Rathbone is going to be a very reliable 2 way defender, that won't be needing to be propped up, as he will be propping up his partner.

Ya, but they're fast and they actually hit. Myers is a gentle giant who takes more stick infraction penalties than hard hitting penalties
- NewYorkNuck

I/Bloated weren't referring to speed or how many hits they had - just actually size.

But surprisingly no, Colorado didn't have as many hits as Vancouver as a team or D wise, individually, Edler threw more than Graves.

People are forgetting that Benning himself was a NHL dman. I’ll trust his view on how to build a defense over anyone’s on this site.