HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Canucks sign D Evan McEneny

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 05:32 PM
  #26
Mason10
Bacon
 
Mason10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,932
vCash: 500
I like it.

Mason10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:02 PM
  #27
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,620
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Wait until you realize you're pinning hopes and dreams on young boys.
uuuuhhhhhh, eeeerrrrrrrrrr

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:08 PM
  #28
Ernieparty
Rookie User
 
Ernieparty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Anyone got his potential rating from NHL 13?

Ernieparty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:11 PM
  #29
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason10 View Post
I like it.
OT, but that's a wicked avatar.

Looking forward to seeing how McEeneny does this year in the O.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:13 PM
  #30
Vankiller Whale
Win it for AV
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,759
vCash: 5100
I'm happy. No we can brag about managing to add an 18-yr old ppg defenseman.

Still, now that he's ours we can be extremely optimistic.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:25 PM
  #31
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
I'm a little unsure about the Canucks giving out contracts to prospects that show upside, but only in very limited time frames... Didn't work out so well with Grenier and Honzik. Hopefully, this is better.


Admittedly, I don't know much about McEneny. He could have the tools. That said, I'm just generally leary about these types of signings.


As an aside, Gillis seems to really favour the OHL. Was there a comparable to Evan in the WHL? As in, someone similar that is also receiving attention?


Gillis did sign Archibald from the OHL. A signing many of us liked at the time. But was it really a good signing considering what was available? Not sure.

Bleach Clean is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:03 PM
  #32
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm a little unsure about the Canucks giving out contracts to prospects that show upside, but only in very limited time frames... Didn't work out so well with Grenier and Honzik. Hopefully, this is better.


Admittedly, I don't know much about McEneny. He could have the tools. That said, I'm just generally leary about these types of signings.


As an aside, Gillis seems to really favour the OHL. Was there a comparable to Evan in the WHL? As in, someone similar that is also receiving attention?


Gillis did sign Archibald from the OHL. A signing many of us liked at the time. But was it really a good signing considering what was available? Not sure.
Neither of those bolded guys have been signed.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:50 PM
  #33
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Neither of those bolded guys have been signed.
I know, but they were targeted for much the same reason: apparent upside, shown within a limited time frame.

Why not wait for bigger sample? I understand the pros and cons. And maybe Archibald, Grenier and Honzik surprise this year. Making my thoughts on this change somewhat, but that's a lot that has to break right.

Bleach Clean is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:22 PM
  #34
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I know, but they were targeted for much the same reason: apparent upside, shown within a limited time frame.

Why not wait for bigger sample? I understand the pros and cons. And maybe Archibald, Grenier and Honzik surprise this year. Making my thoughts on this change somewhat, but that's a lot that has to break right.
Because if they were proven commodities they wouldn't be available where they were drafted at.

There's nothing wrong with taking these low risk gambles.

Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:08 PM
  #35
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I know, but they were targeted for much the same reason: apparent upside, shown within a limited time frame.

Why not wait for bigger sample? I understand the pros and cons. And maybe Archibald, Grenier and Honzik surprise this year. Making my thoughts on this change somewhat, but that's a lot that has to break right.
If McEneny wasn't signed before September 15th, he goes back into the draft next season. You're basically trading one lottery ticket (a draft pick) for another (a contract slot) without the potential that he gets snagged by another team.

Or, alternatively, he could have signed with another team and the Canucks end up with nothing.

I'd rather the team take a flyer like this on a player that was highly projected but not drafted because they were hurt than take a flyer on a guy who wasn't drafted simply because he wasn't good enough (like Tochkin).

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:24 PM
  #36
ProstheticConscience
I see an eagle
 
ProstheticConscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canuck Nation
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,062
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
In June I realised the kids getting drafted were younger than me. It was quite the "have I really gotten that old?" moment. All my life pro sports players have been older than me, now there are NHL players younger than me.
Wait until they're younger than your kid. You just sit blankly for minute marveling at how old you got, and how fast.

----------------------------

And McEneny: Who needs Schultz?

ProstheticConscience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:26 PM
  #37
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
If McEneny wasn't signed before September 15th, he goes back into the draft next season. You're basically trading one lottery ticket (a draft pick) for another (a contract slot) without the potential that he gets snagged by another team.

Or, alternatively, he could have signed with another team and the Canucks end up with nothing.

I'd rather the team take a flyer like this on a player that was highly projected but not drafted because they were hurt than take a flyer on a guy who wasn't drafted simply because he wasn't good enough (like Tochkin).

I understand the reasoning behind taking a chance on a Grenier and not a Tochkin. The former has high upside and was a draft day possible, the latter didn't do enough to be drafted. Very different assets there.


It's not a "would you rather...". It's "should the Canucks be taking these sorts of gambles at all" when Grenier and Honzik aren't showing well, and were drafted on the strength of their showing over a small sample. Now, people aren't high on either prospect. Then there's Archibald, who did attend the camps of many teams, and the Canucks signed him only to have him not make the cut to the AHL...


You can't complain too much because signing FAs like this yielded Tanev and Lack... But whatever, hope it works out. I'm just not enamoured with this strategy.

Bleach Clean is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:46 PM
  #38
windflare
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
He also played very well defensively last year - 16 years old playing well defensively for 44 games in the OHL is nothing to sneer at, even if he didn't have the offensive production of a blue chipper.

windflare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:47 PM
  #39
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
You can't complain too much because signing FAs like this yielded Tanev and Lack... But whatever, hope it works out. I'm just not enamoured with this strategy.
I agree about the draft picks, but why not for FAs?

What's the alternative? Having a bunch of empty contract slots? Obviously you don't want to throw around contracts like candy, but at the end of the day pretty much every prospect you are signing as an FA is going to have a significant amount of risk attached.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:06 PM
  #40
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I agree about the draft picks, but why not for FAs?

What's the alternative? Having a bunch of empty contract slots? Obviously you don't want to throw around contracts like candy, but at the end of the day pretty much every prospect you are signing as an FA is going to have a significant amount of risk attached.

The alternative is to better use the empty contract slots you do have by tracking talent for longer periods of time.


Year to year, the Canucks don't seem to have an abundance of open slots anyways, so it's not like the team can throw them around anyways. Isn't this why people were bemoaning the re-signing of Desbiens?


Anyways, the thrust of my argument is to track these guys for longer. That's all. Hope he does well.

Bleach Clean is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:33 PM
  #41
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernieparty View Post
Anyone got his potential rating from NHL 13?
2 star

Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:56 PM
  #42
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Anyways, the thrust of my argument is to track these guys for longer. That's all. Hope he does well.
but we're not the only ones tracking these guys.

Ultimately, McEneny was a prospect camp invite, and they got a good, hard enough look at him to feel he was worth a contract.

Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:00 AM
  #43
Vankiller Whale
Win it for AV
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,759
vCash: 5100
I think this signing kind of makes up for us passing on Severson for Mallet.

Vankiller Whale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:01 AM
  #44
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The alternative is to better use the empty contract slots you do have by tracking talent for longer periods of time.


Year to year, the Canucks don't seem to have an abundance of open slots anyways, so it's not like the team can throw them around anyways. Isn't this why people were bemoaning the re-signing of Desbiens?


Anyways, the thrust of my argument is to track these guys for longer. That's all. Hope he does well.
But who are these players that you can track for longer before you sign them? Most of the CHL players that don't get signed at 18 and later become good players get snapped up in the draft. You can comb the college ranks but it's not as though Gillis has avoided this.

The only reason the team needs open slots is to make signings like McEneny. The only players the Canucks haven't been able to acquire through the years because they've used up their contract slots are the boom/bust, long shot, free prospects.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:52 AM
  #45
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
 
Callhee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 630
vCash: 500
Could be a good signing, he already has the size; 6'2" and 205lbs. According to scouts he also has decent wheels, good vision and is pretty good defensively. When he fills out and packs on another 10 pounds or so; he could be quite effective. Definitely worth a contract slot.

Callhee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:59 AM
  #46
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,641
vCash: 500
Kitchener punches out quality NHL players all the time. Like this signing a lot. I mean for a September signing..

keslerburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:31 AM
  #47
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,517
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Was he undrafted? Didn't know NHL teams could lock them up before they lost their draft eligibility...
This is my understanding of the matter. North American juniors are draft eligible for 3 years, after which time they can be signed to an ELC any time throughout the season (ie, Archibald).

However, junior players can be signed after their first (or second) draft if they go undrafted by every team and are invited to a team's training camp (ie, Vancouver). This team will have a limited time period to sign the player: up until around the middle of September I believe (ie, now).

So a team could sign as many kids as they had contract slots for, after the kids' first (18-year-old) drafts. But, it must be done before their next junior seasons start.

I think this rule does not apply to European players - they must go through 3 drafts before being signed.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:39 AM
  #48
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,517
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm a little unsure about the Canucks giving out contracts to prospects that show upside, but only in very limited time frames... Didn't work out so well with Grenier and Honzik.
As you touch on later, where would we be if you were Gillis' adviser in the summer of 2010?

"An older European backup goalie?? He's never even been a starter?? No no, don't sign him - he had ONE good playoffs! way too small of a sample."

"A college defenseman who wasn't even drafted? Passed over 3 times? Of course you shouldn't sign him, he hasn't even played a single full season in college. Listen, Mike, we need these contract slots in case we find someone we want to sign!"

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:48 AM
  #49
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,517
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
If McEneny wasn't signed before September 15th, he goes back into the draft next season. You're basically trading one lottery ticket (a draft pick) for another (a contract slot) without the potential that he gets snagged by another team.

Or, alternatively, he could have signed with another team and the Canucks end up with nothing.

I'd rather the team take a flyer like this on a player that was highly projected but not drafted because they were hurt than take a flyer on a guy who wasn't drafted simply because he wasn't good enough (like Tochkin).
Agreed entirely. Immediately after the 2011 draft I was whining that Gillis should have used the 7th round pick on Joey Laleggia, and signed Tommernes to a contract, if he was deemed worthy of one. It just makes sense (to me) to take the flyer on the college kid, and sign the overager European (because of the different rules in place for different leagues). This year Gillis did everything right, he took the flyers on college kids, and now he signed the junior kid after his 1st draft. If Mceneny has a big year this upcoming season, and we don't sign him now, he could easily get picked in the first 3 rounds. Good job, Gillis!

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:57 AM
  #50
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic Method Man View Post
As you touch on later, where would we be if you were Gillis' adviser in the summer of 2010?

"An older European backup goalie?? He's never even been a starter?? No no, don't sign him - he had ONE good playoffs! way too small of a sample."

"A college defenseman who wasn't even drafted? Passed over 3 times? Of course you shouldn't sign him, he hasn't even played a single full season in college. Listen, Mike, we need these contract slots in case we find someone we want to sign!"
I laughed so hard at this.

Wisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.