Peeke could be a good add

Peeke has been one of the worst performing D in the nhl over the past while

Columbus has been slammed with injuries and he normally plays against top competition while logging 20+ minutes a night.

In a lesser role, he'd be more effective.

People say this about everyone. Its right about 3% of the time

Source: you made it up

The specific number? yeah. The actual would be WAY lower based on how often it gets said

Except, for Peeke, it's true. With Werenski missing the year and Boqvist only playing 40 games, CBJ didn't have anyone who could log big minutes. Peeke played 21 minutes on a lottery team, of course he was going to get shelled. He had no help.

With their acquisitions of Provorov and Severson, he'll do a lot better because he won't have to play that big of a role. If he got traded to VAN, he'd do better as well.

(He was bad before that too).

Also, playing a lot isn't a scouting report. There isn't a single argument in here beyond toi as to why he'd improve

(He was on Columbus before that too)

Good players are good wherever they are

We'll agree to disagree. He's been a product of CBJ giving him 20+ minutes a night the past two seasons because they didn't have anybody else to log the minutes. He's not that bad, he's just misused.

That argument is also just not really true. Is Huberdeau a bad player because Sutter buried him on the 3rd line, resulting in his production to half? Players get misused all the time.

Huberdeau was always overrated, but he has a track record of success.

Peeke has shown no ability at any point. There is nothing you can point to to say "this player isn't being utilized properly - but will be good if used as such..." Its all conjecture

He's always looked good bouncing in and out of their system playing games where he wasn't thrown onto the top line getting top minutes. When he's not in that role, he's looked decent. Saying he's shown no ability at any point would be flat out wrong, but, your opinion, and it seems I'm not going to bother trying to change it.

Have a good night!

This isn't true at all. His results were always terrible in any meaningful sample size.
Have a great night

Not true but sure. We'll roll with that!

Playing with AHL defensemen, in a new system that no player understood, being implemented by a new head coach that was way over his head is definitely a reason that he would improve. Also him, boqvist and bean all were forced to play on the wrong side for parts of the year due to injury. Boqvist and Peeke failed miserably at the experiment, which didn't help his numbers. You don't want him as your first pairing guy, but he should be a solid 3rd pairing guy that could fill in on the second if needed.

Glad to see you have stats to back up all your talk. Peeke is a shot blocking machine (366 blocked shots/162 games the past two seasons), who lays hits (371 hits/162 games the past two seasons) and plays heavy in the corner. Is he a top pairing guy, no but he is good on the penalty kill and in a 2nd or 3rd pairing role he would be fine. Let me ask you this, if Peeke is so bad then why do multiple franchises seem to throw trade rumors for him? I guess fans just want one of the worst D guys in the league then......

Wanna give him a shot with Hughes. Let him play a simple game in support of Hughes. Hughes needs a partner badly.

You'll be very disappointed. He's been paired with a roving offensive Michigan product number one LHD before and it didn't work.

He'll be a solid PK and bottom pair defenseman on a good team, though. He is just very much not built for top pair minutes or workload.

If I posted the stats, would you even care?
Most people who ask this tend to go on some half baked tirade against math

You posted a % and then claimed it would be less then that, which it very well may but it's subjective.

The point is, you stated Peeke showed no ability at any point and has no results at any point. You don't like the player, fine, that's fair but his stats don't represent the player you think they represent. Have a good one.

I don't think he is close to a top pairing D partner. I'm not arguing that point but I think he is worth his salt on the 3rd pair (low end 2nd if needed) and as a defensive defensemen.

Lol. Results don't represent a player is a hell of a take

LOL, way to twist my words bud. I said "his stats don't represent the player YOU think they represent", not that results don't represent a player.

Let me break it down for you.

You stated that Peeke has shown no ability, his stats show he blocks a heck of a lot of shots.

You said Peeke has has shown no results at any point, once again, his stats show he not only blocks a lot of shots, but he also lays a lot of hits per season.

Each of these translate into a decent penalty killer and defensive defensemen. In short your claim that Peeke has done nothing at any point and has shown no ability are not backed up by a simple check of the players stats and visual representation of his playing style.

Peeke can well in Van with Hughes. CBJ was an infirmary ward last season. Canucks need to try to make something happen because the defense minus one more RHD is terrible. That's my take for this ACGM not that he sucks or has tried this in CBJ last season. Late bloomers on D is not crazy. Allvin let's go!