ChilliBilly
Registered User
And I think kuzmenko could have been shopped for at least some sort of asset.
Prospect Info: The 2023-2024 Prospects Thread Pt. 3
- Thread starter Tables of Stats
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Wisp
Registered User
- Nov 14, 2010
- 7,875
- 2,786
Part of the reason Hunter was traded is he didn't want to sign. Having Quinn Hughes dominating the power play is intimidating I guess.
Fair enough but with how good the season was going I'd still have made the trade.
Ya that's a fair point assuming it's true as I can't remember but that would be a poor decision on Hunters part.
That's not what they were saying at Development Camp.....he's apparently up to 225 pounds and his skating is dramatically better then it was in his draft year. Camp watchers say he was using his size and speed to drive the net.
He may well turn out to be 'nothing special' as you say. But by the time you're picking players in the fourth round, all you're hoping for is that they show continuous improvement in their draft-plus-one and draft-plus-two seasons.
I also find it interesting that after his season was over in Guelph, the Canucks flew Arliksson out to Vancouver so he could practice with the Abbotsford Canucks. So clearly they see something in him.
Last edited:
- May 3, 2021
- 9,121
- 9,127
He was turned into part of Lindholm who had a really impactful playoffs for us. They are trying to win the Stanley Cup and may well have pulled it off last year or came close had Thatcher Demko not gotten hurt. It's admittedly a razor thin edge they're trying to ride to do it but superhuman goaltending is part of the plan they have to pull this off. It's obviously not everyone's cup of tea but it's even more obvious that it is the plan and ya kinda just gotta get on board. I am personally hoping they're done shopping and go into the season as constructed. You know the base level this group can achieve. They'll be in the playoffs mix if they again get favourable injury luck. I am then hoping with their current level of cap space having compounded during the season they are planning on a robust deadline to hyper target the necessary inprovements needed to make this team a monster in front of a Vezina contender. The time is now.
From all reports, Brzustewicz was nothing special at the Flames Development camp, and even a little disappointing in the eyes of some observers.
I think the Canucks assessed him in their own development camp a year ago, and his OHL season, and decided to 'sell' at the top of the market. I'd be surprised if he ends up in the AHL this season. More likely back to the OHL for his 19-year old season.
When you draft Zayne, of course Hunter is going to look like shit haha. When I saw Hunter play said he was hard to ignore but at the same time, he defended like Tyson Barrie and his skating was avg. He's not big and didn't play big either.
I have heard praise for many on Kudryavtsev. Not big, doesn't play big, isn't quick, it's superior defensively or offensively, doesn't have the hardest shot. Profiles a lot like Mark Friedman and that's great for a 7th round pick. Things can change but I'm not holding out for much more.
I feel certain that when the Flames and Canucks were putting the Lindholm deal together, Calgary probably initially demanded the 'other' right-shot defender in the Canucks' prospect pool--Tom Wilander.
And I'm equally sure the Canucks said 'no way' and countered with another of their right-shot prospect d-men Hunter Brzustewicz, which was acceptable.
But that's the value of finding gems, even in the third round of a draft. You can always use them as trade chips to upgrade your roster.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 30,163
- 18,688
we were two goals away from the conference finals, with dallas, who ended up running out of gas, on the other side. it definitely was worth trading brzu, even if he hits his ceiling.
look at these cup winners who cashed in on good-to-great young players: young brett hull for rob ramage and mike vernon insurance (89 flames); young tony amonte, doug weight, and todd marchant to bring in brian noonan, stephane matteau, and tikkanen and mact as ringers (94 rangers); young blake wheeler for rich peverley (2010 bruins). these are all teams we took to game seven.
you have to shoot your shot.
ChilliBilly
Registered User
It would have been interesting if Demko was healthy, but so it goes. I was worried when we made the trade that he was just going to be a rental, and was Pretty sure that it was going to take at least another year with some playoff experience behind us to go anywhere in the playoffs.
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
Florida has traded four 1sts in a row (including 2 for rentals in 2022). If you're aggressively trying to contend not all of your gambles are going to pay off.
Yeah, they were also getting 24 year old Matthew Tkachuk. Claude Giroux (not so good). Chariot (that was really funny), 25 year old Sam Reinhart.
Trading 1sts for players that could become part of your core seems like a better bet than trading them for rentals.
Miller for a 1st = good. Haha.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 16,680
- 10,680
He had 2 points in his last like 13 games - as a guy who looked like dogshit when he wasn't scoring - was playing himself out of the lineup, and had another year left at 5.5. You're not getting any type of asset that will help the team in a straight swap for that player at that point.
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I agree, but if we're ranking what things to do with our 1sts, I'd rank "actually picking a player with them" at last
I also am not sure if Lindholm was ever a pure rental, or if they changed their mind after picking him up
ChilliBilly
Registered User
I was thinking someone might take a flyer and give a 3rd if we retained say 10%.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 16,680
- 10,680
My belief that that'd be quite unlikely at that point aside, what benefit is that for the club?
If the goal is just to get picks, then they'd be much better off just feeding him plush assignments and driving his value up, but they were trying to do something, which is why they went after Lindholm.
Last edited:
Yeah not so sure either. Seemed weird to make the trade then immediately trying to get rid of him unless they felt they were buying low and going to sell high on him. That would have been sweet. Lol.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 17,936
- 10,683
with hindsight i think they got wind boston had the inside track on lindholm this year so they tried to salvage the situation by trading him there to get guentzel instead.
HairyKneel
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2023
- 1,662
- 1,559
He was part of the deal for Lindholm. He was never going to play a key role for this coaching staff. Nobody was offering an asset for him on his own.
Jesus H
Nobody n this board knows if this is true
Wry n Ginger
Water which is too pure has no fish
Kuz is a "rebuild" team darling. Puts up points on teams 'just trying to compete' that know they aren't contending but want someone to score some goals.
It was a good trade given the asset we gained did much more to help us get to game 7 in round 2. Kuz would not have done the same.
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,874
- 9,013
It's possible that Kuzmenko will continue to figure out the league and become a guy who can play for a winning team.
But it became clear last year that he was a real weak spot on a team with a system that needs to run tight and can't afford to have someone floating around like Mike Ribeiro out there.
The other thing is, the team's braintrust has a hell of a lot more info to go on than we do. So one would presume that they worked with him on it endlessly, talked to him, and just felt like he either wasn't quick enough on the uptake of North American two way hockey, or wasn't willing to alter his game.
Either way, getting rid of his 5.5 million for this year was an absolute Godsend and getting Lindholm worked out well. This will remain true even if he puts up 30 goals and 60 points while Calgary flounders and finishes 26th in the league.
But it became clear last year that he was a real weak spot on a team with a system that needs to run tight and can't afford to have someone floating around like Mike Ribeiro out there.
The other thing is, the team's braintrust has a hell of a lot more info to go on than we do. So one would presume that they worked with him on it endlessly, talked to him, and just felt like he either wasn't quick enough on the uptake of North American two way hockey, or wasn't willing to alter his game.
Either way, getting rid of his 5.5 million for this year was an absolute Godsend and getting Lindholm worked out well. This will remain true even if he puts up 30 goals and 60 points while Calgary flounders and finishes 26th in the league.
The big screw up for management wasn’t that they traded Kuzmenko when they did, it’s that they, along with Tochett, didn’t get a good read on Kuzmenko and thought he could play the system, but in reality, we should have traded him and not re-signed him.
strattonius
Registered User
I don't think anyone was expecting our leap in play. We were just hoping to grab a playoff spot last year but it became obvious we were winning the division and were a contender. My point is I think they figured they had more time to either develop Kuzmenko; or they realized they couldn't roster him when they envisioned a grueling playoff series and had to move his CAP. Kind-of impossible to predict his play last year and it's disingenuous to say 'bad play Kuzmenko = mistake signing' - it's not realistic expectations. Everyone wanted Kuzmenko inked to something. Some even wanted long term.
The positives we can take from it are that management moved off a player they originally had faith in - they didn’t double down. We saw them make the same type of decision with Mikheyev. IMO it's very encouraging to have a management group that isn't stubborn on their previous decisions, but rather will adapt to the constant changes that happen to players.
In regards to the Lindholm trade almost anyone who criticizes it downplays the CAP space acquired. The plan was probably to get Lindholm signed when they traded for him but there was some chemistry issues and Lindholm's demands got a little too high. It's moot though because the CAP we cleared for Kuzmenko got us Debrusk. Literally dollar for dollar both players are 5.5M.
Kuzmenko may thrive in Calgary, which has basically strip-mined its roster and is preparing for a tough season in year one of a rebuild. Of course there's not much pressure on individual players when you aren't expected to win.
But Kuzmenko is now 28, and turns 29 in the middle of next season. He's hardly a rookie anymore, and I suspect he is what he is--a guy who's got some offensive chops particularly on the PP. But can be maddingly erratic on the defensive side of the puck. Even if the Canucks hadn't traded him for Lindholm, I honestly doubt he'd have survived the off-season in Vancouver. Tocchet and the Canucks have a pretty clear idea of the kind of wingers they want up and down their lineup.
But Kuzmenko is now 28, and turns 29 in the middle of next season. He's hardly a rookie anymore, and I suspect he is what he is--a guy who's got some offensive chops particularly on the PP. But can be maddingly erratic on the defensive side of the puck. Even if the Canucks hadn't traded him for Lindholm, I honestly doubt he'd have survived the off-season in Vancouver. Tocchet and the Canucks have a pretty clear idea of the kind of wingers they want up and down their lineup.
- Status
