Ya, I didn't get the feeling that Benning is looking to move up at all. The TSN headline didn't match the interview.
TSN: Canucks looking to Trade Up in Draft
- Thread starter DownGoesMcDavid
- Start date
Ya, I didn't get the feeling that Benning is looking to move up at all. The TSN headline didn't match the interview.
I am getting the sense that the other scenario is more plausible, that we might try to trade 33 and 55 for 25 or something like this. Not sure how I would feel about that.
Hi-wayman
Registered User
Why does moving up have to involve the first round at all let alone involving moving up from the 5th over all pick?
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
I think this is much more likely than moving up from 5.
For me it would depend on who's available and who we take. If we get to 25 and two of Suzuki, Thomas, JAD are gone, then I might be okay with doing that kind of deal to take one of those three. Or if a guy like Brannstrom is falling but you don't expect him to get to 33, it might make sense to do that deal.
Then again, I fully expect we would be able to get one of those 3 C's at 33 (Brannstrom most likely gone before 20), as well as another good player at 55, whether it be goalie Michael DiPietro, wingers Jonah Gadjovich, Jason Robertson, or Kole Lind, or defenseman Josh Brook.
It doesn't *necessarily* but that is the colloquial meaning. When teams say "we will attempt to move up" they aren't usually talking about moving up from the 7th round to the 6th round.
Of course Benning thinks "going forward" means "at some unknown point in the future" so I've given up trying to decipher whatever the hell he means when he speaks.
He might be to us, but I will eat my shoe if Tanev gets anything even close to the 3rd overall pick..
I think if liljegren starts falling Benning will definitely trying to get another 1st to take him.
Just keep 5 and trade Tanev to Dallas for 3 and a goalie dump then draft Glass and one of Vilardi/Heiskanen/Makar/Necas
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,859
- 10,926
Yeah. Exactly.
Now, looking at potentially moving up from 33 into the back end of the 1st round or something of that sort...that is a far more realistic possibility.
With the way this draft looks...It may actually be a year i'd be enthusiastic about moving up like that. The 1st round looks so wide open this year, it's entirely plausible that we could move up from 33 into the mid-late 20s and grab a player i like as a Top-15ish talent. Just depends on who likes who and how it all actually shakes out. This could be the type of year where the guy you like may "fall" quite a bit when each team only has to like 1 other guy better at their pick...and opinions seem to be all over the map on so many players.
Heck, if they really are as high on Liljegren as some of the rumours have suggested...he might even be a guy who fits that bill for them.
Technically it happened five times in the last 15 years. Besides NYI trading down in 2008, Columbus traded the 4th overall pick in 2004 (Ladd) for 8th overall + 59th overall pick (what a disastrous draft for Columbus). In 2003 Florida and Pittsburgh swapped #1 and #3 picks. In 2002 Florida and Columbus swapped #1 and #3 picks. Tampa traded the #4 overall pick for Fedotenko + 2nds.
CanuckCity
Registered User
Posted on the main board thread:
Well Benning already mentioned that he has no intention of trading Tanev, and RD doesnt seem to be Dallas greatest need. So lets put that to rest for now.
We can also assume Edler sticks to his word and doesnt want to waive.
That leaves Gudbranson/Hutton + 33 + 55? + something else significant that we probably dont have/cant afford.
With tryamkin leaving now too... I just dont see how we acquire #3 w/o giving up #5 and it would be terrible asset management to bleed more picks when 1 (and likely 2) of Glass/Mitts/Vilardi will be available at 5.
If you were sitting at #6 and really needed one of them then this would make more sense..
Obviously Mitts has the potential... but god help us if we give up 33 for us to guarantee we get him he better friggen pan out.
Well Benning already mentioned that he has no intention of trading Tanev, and RD doesnt seem to be Dallas greatest need. So lets put that to rest for now.
We can also assume Edler sticks to his word and doesnt want to waive.
That leaves Gudbranson/Hutton + 33 + 55? + something else significant that we probably dont have/cant afford.
With tryamkin leaving now too... I just dont see how we acquire #3 w/o giving up #5 and it would be terrible asset management to bleed more picks when 1 (and likely 2) of Glass/Mitts/Vilardi will be available at 5.
If you were sitting at #6 and really needed one of them then this would make more sense..
Obviously Mitts has the potential... but god help us if we give up 33 for us to guarantee we get him he better friggen pan out.
I still think if were able to get 3 by taking on a bad goalie contract and trading Dallas Tanev wed be in a better position for the future. Imagine our future with both Glass and Makar or Vilardi or even Necas or Mittsy or Heiskanen. Turns our prospect pool from 13-17 overall to top ten IMO
Glass
Heiskanen
Boeser
Juolevi
Demko
Goldobin
Dahlen
Gaudette
Top 5, easily...
Ya moving from 5 to 3 in this draft shouldn't require a significant asset. If we take a goalie contract back in the exchange that should be fair tbh. Anything more just isn't worth it for 2 spots in that part of the draft.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Eh...right now it's bottom 10. Two picks in the top 5 this year probably puts us in the mid teens.
Yeah, good call. It wouldn't surprise me if Benning has juolevi inked into a spot and thinks Hutton is expendable.
Hutton+33 for some junk; this year's version of the McCann trade.
I think Dallas is Bluffing.
Word is they are also in love with Gabriel Vilardi
I think they are just trying to bend over Jim Benning and the Canucks again
Word is they are also in love with Gabriel Vilardi
I think they are just trying to bend over Jim Benning and the Canucks again
GetFocht
Indestructible
- Jun 11, 2013
- 9,077
- 4,373
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,883
- 9,563
high first rounders have marketing value as well as hockey value. even in a southern us market where the gm is somewhat sheltered from fan meltdowns, trading one is a tough trigger to pull for a boring return, no matter how sensible the deal is as a hockey trade.
i think we just do not have anything sexy enough to offer to land a second high pick.
a mid first rounder is possible but that kind of deal should not happen until the draft is underway and we know the player we want is still available.
that leaves trading up a couple of spots, which to me would be ridiculous unless we got to at least #2. there is just not enough clear separation between 3 and 5 to justify the price. even if the canucks are desperate for a centre, it is nowhere near clear who will be best among vilardi, glass and mittelstadt, and we are guaranteed one of them is available at 5.
i think we just do not have anything sexy enough to offer to land a second high pick.
a mid first rounder is possible but that kind of deal should not happen until the draft is underway and we know the player we want is still available.
that leaves trading up a couple of spots, which to me would be ridiculous unless we got to at least #2. there is just not enough clear separation between 3 and 5 to justify the price. even if the canucks are desperate for a centre, it is nowhere near clear who will be best among vilardi, glass and mittelstadt, and we are guaranteed one of them is available at 5.
LeBrun also said there were several other teams interested in that pick, of course Benning was the only one to state it publicly and expose himself. Nill will play that card hard and suck Benning into overpaying.
Jack Burton
Pro Tank Since 13
Yep. Benning needs to learn to keep is mouth shut! Thank god he doesn't have a twitter account
