First overall pick

[y2kcanucks]

You rarely see trade ups (at least to 1st overall) in the NHL because plain and simple it just isn't worth it. You can repeat that for the NBA too. NFL is a different story due to QB and their value for the franchise.

Also this draft, based on most scouting reports, isn't one with a "can't miss" prospect/McDavid/Crosby/etc. Of course if it was, the cost would also reflect that (and probability of a trade would basically be 0).

Plus i really don't see that big of a drop from say Patrick/Hischier to say Vilardi who realistically is like another Horvat (skating issues but plus smarts/skill/size). Or say someone like Pettersson just because we generally have the most success with Swedes...

Although given Benning's success/fail rate, my guess is he goes with Mittelstadt if we draft outside the top 3 just because he's probably the top NCAA prospect out of the bunch and i believe already committed to U of Minn. We seem to have decent NCAA success recently and Benning's most successful picks are either NCAA or KHL prospects (at least thus far).

Even then...when you see what the Rams gave up to move up and pick Goff at 1...ouch.

 

[denkiteki]

Even then...when you see what the Rams gave up to move up and pick Goff at 1...ouch.

NFL is different since everyone who doesn't have a QB, will give up just about anything to find that QB. Almost every time a trade is made for #1 Overall in the NFL its for a QB.

Remember the Rams a few years ago traded the 2nd overall pick (RG3) for #6, 2nd, and 1st in 2013 and 2014. Basically Rams got #6, #39, 22, #2 (2014)...

In most cases, these trade up deals... the team trading up ends up losing regardless. The only one who might have won a massive trade up deal are the Falcons and they lost in the superbowl. Julio Jones trade was kinda expensive and played a big part in ATL's run last year.

While rebuilding, it actually makes more sense to be the one trading down (unless there's a true franchise talent) and let those who figure they are close take a chance with that high pick. We actually need forward depth so we're @ a "quantity > quality" right now since we have no quantity...

 

[tyhee]

I posed a similar question a few weeks back..... If we end up drafting anywhere from 3-5 would you package that up with Virtanen for first overall?

Question arising from this one-is there any NHL GM who would accept that deal for 1st overall? I have trouble imagining it.

 

[y2kcanucks]

NFL is different since everyone who doesn't have a QB, will give up just about anything to find that QB. Almost every time a trade is made for #1 Overall in the NFL its for a QB.

Remember the Rams a few years ago traded the 2nd overall pick (RG3) for #6, 2nd, and 1st in 2013 and 2014. Basically Rams got #6, #39, 22, #2 (2014)...

In most cases, these trade up deals... the team trading up ends up losing regardless. The only one who might have won a massive trade up deal are the Falcons and they lost in the superbowl. Julio Jones trade was kinda expensive and played a big part in ATL's run last year.

While rebuilding, it actually makes more sense to be the one trading down (unless there's a true franchise talent) and let those who figure they are close take a chance with that high pick. We actually need forward depth so we're @ a "quantity > quality" right now since we have no quantity...

We have no quality either.

I still say take the best asset you can. I'd still be okay with trading up as long as we're not giving up any asset that we would build around long-term. But realistically, that likely doesn't leave many options that would consummate a deal.

 

[Hammer79]

Nolan is not projected as a 2C.

Bob McKenzie disagrees with you.

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1...-don-t-want-to-trade-hansen-or-edler-1.668016

Nolan talk starts at 4:30 mark.

"I don't know if I would project him as a #1 center based on conversations I've had with scouts, um, but he's probably a 2. Detractors would suggest that he's a lower case 2, because he's not dynamic, he might be closer to a 3 than a 2"

 

[y2kcanucks]

Bob McKenzie disagrees with you.

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1...-don-t-want-to-trade-hansen-or-edler-1.668016

Nolan talk starts at 4:30 mark.

"I don't know if I would project him as a #1 center based on conversations I've had with scouts, um, but he's probably a 2. Detractors would suggest that he's a lower case 2, because he's not dynamic, he might be closer to a 3 than a 2"

That's nice. I completely disagree with that assessment. Players who put up over 100 points in their Draft - 1 year do not end up as 2 or 3C's.

 

[Hammer79]

That's nice. I completely disagree with that assessment. Players who put up over 100 points in their Draft - 1 year do not end up as 2 or 3C's.

You said that he wasn't being projected as a 2C, so I linked Bob McKenzie saying that he's actually talked to scouts and that's what he's hearing, so in fact he is being projected as a 2C. In your opinion he's higher, but the consensus doesn't agree with your projection.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You said that he wasn't being projected as a 2C, so I linked Bob McKenzie saying that he's actually talked to scouts and that's what he's hearing, so in fact he is being projected as a 2C. In your opinion he's higher, but the consensus doesn't agree with your projection.

That's literally the only place I've seen anyone suggest he's a 2 or 3C.

It's my opinion, and literally every other publication I've seen, as well as supported by the stats.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

This season's top picks probably aren't worth trading up for. At the very least the ask would be more than we would want to offer, considering the pickin's.

I say, be happy for whatever we can get this year, and go full-on tank next season when the draft prospects project to be much more promising.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

That's nice. I completely disagree with that assessment. Players who put up over 100 points in their Draft - 1 year do not end up as 2 or 3C's.

that would explain your misplaced recurring hard on for Shinkaruk...and Couturier..... and Boychuk right?

 

[F A N]

Players who put up over 100 points in their Draft - 1 year do not end up as 2 or 3C's.

I don't think Patrick projects as a true #1 but I take that as meaning he isn't near the level of players considered to be generational talents. Too many people get too caught up in trying to label players near draft time. It's useful and informative but it isn't definitive.

I think a good comparison is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. RNH was heralded as most likely to be picked #1 since he was 16 or earlier. At draft time his 1C potential was questioned as well. I think a properly developed injury free RNH could have been a 65-70 point playmaking two-way C who can form a good one two punch with a C like Horvat.

So ya maybe Patrick isn't going to be a dynamic game breaking C. But I would be happy if the Canucks drafts him. I think he can develop into a "1st line" C in the NHL.

Like i said the cost will reflect that if there is a McDavid @ the top... i don't consider Matthews in the same category and even the build-up to the draft, there wasn't a huge split between Matthews and Laine or even Puljujarvi at one point. This year there's really 2 players in Patrick/Hischier but if you were to put them in last year's draft, they might have dropped out of the top 5 (tho replace Juolevi with Tkachuk). There really isn't a huge drop off after those 2 favorites for #1 either.

I don't think you understood my point but that's okay. I disagree with you on Matthews. Eichel was about as close to unseating McDavid as Laine was to unseating Matthews. And at the time of the McDavid draft, some wonder whether Matthews (had he been eligible for McDavid's draft) would have been #2. In reality McDavid and Matthews were going #1 from beginning to end.

 

[y2kcanucks]

that would explain your misplaced recurring hard on for Shinkaruk...and Couturier..... and Boychuk right?

Shinkaruk suffered a serious hip injury that hurt his development.

Boychuk's numbers dropped significantly in his draft year. Patrick's PPG is on par with the 100 point pace he put up last year.

I have always been high on Couturier, yes.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I don't think Patrick projects as a true #1 but I take that as meaning he isn't near the level of players considered to be generational talents. Too many people get too caught up in trying to label players near draft time. It's useful and informative but it isn't definitive.

I think a good comparison is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. RNH was heralded as most likely to be picked #1 since he was 16 or earlier. At draft time his 1C potential was questioned as well. I think a properly developed injury free RNH could have been a 65-70 point playmaking two-way C who can form a good one two punch with a C like Horvat.

So ya maybe Patrick isn't going to be a dynamic game breaking C. But I would be happy if the Canucks drafts him. I think he can develop into a "1st line" C in the NHL.

No one has called Patrick a generational talent. I've always maintained that I see him as a Jonathan Toews/Eric Staal type player. A defensively responsible 70ish point 1C. He's got better size than RNH too which suggests he should be more durable at the NHL level. I would have the doctors give him a strong look though to ensure anything he's suffered in his junior career isn't going to linger.

 

[LeftCoast]

Shinkaruk suffered a serious hip injury that hurt his development.

Boychuk's numbers dropped significantly in his draft year. Patrick's PPG is on par with the 100 point pace he put up last year.

I have always been high on Couturier, yes.

In 2013 you were practically unglued because the Canucks didn't take Shinkaruk or Nichushkin at #9.

BTW - I like Patrick and would probably take him 1st but I do think Hischier is worthy of being in the discussion for 1OA.

 

[y2kcanucks]

In 2013 you were practically unglued because the Canucks didn't take Shinkaruk or Nichushkin at #9.

BTW - I like Patrick and would probably take him 1st but I do think Hischier is worthy of being in the discussion for 1OA.

Are you suggesting I should have foreseen the injury Shinkaruk would later sustain?

I like Hischier too, but I have Patrick at 1, and Hischier at 2. Wouldn't be upset with either. I just think it's stupid when people suggest Patrick doesn't have 1C potential.

 

[LeftCoast]

Are you suggesting I should have foreseen the injury Shinkaruk would later sustain?

I liked Shinkaruk too, just not at #9OA. But with both Shinkaruk and Nuke, the concerns that caused them to drop were eventually born out. With Shinkaruk the concern was that he didn't play with the strength and determination to drive the net. Has the hip injury been a factor? Probably, but by all indications be has fully recovered now and the original concerns remain. With Nichushkin, concerns were about his commitment to the NHL.

I like Hischier too, but I have Patrick at 1, and Hischier at 2. Wouldn't be upset with either. I just think it's stupid when people suggest Patrick doesn't have 1C potential.

Agreed

 

[F A N]

No one has called Patrick a generational talent. I've always maintained that I see him as a Jonathan Toews/Eric Staal type player. A defensively responsible 70ish point 1C. He's got better size than RNH too which suggests he should be more durable at the NHL level. I would have the doctors give him a strong look though to ensure anything he's suffered in his junior career isn't going to linger.

So you basically agreed with my post.

 

[denkiteki]

That's nice. I completely disagree with that assessment. Players who put up over 100 points in their Draft - 1 year do not end up as 2 or 3C's.

Actually remember he was only a few days from being in the draft last year and if you want to believe TSN/Sportsnet (not sure which or both, think it was TSN), they ranked him outside the top 4 in last year's draft (if he was in the pool, again he missed it by a few days).

Add to that he hasn't done much this year and of course was hurt to start the season... things that don't really help your stock.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Actually remember he was only a few days from being in the draft last year and if you want to believe TSN/Sportsnet (not sure which or both, think it was TSN), they ranked him outside the top 4 in last year's draft (if he was in the pool, again he missed it by a few days).

Add to that he hasn't done much this year and of course was hurt to start the season... things that don't really help your stock.

Making things up again?

He's scored at a 44 goal, 101 point pace this season. How is that considered not doing much?

And why penalize him for his birthdate? If Auston Matthews were a couple days younger he'd be in the McDavid draft. So what?

And based on how the draft went, I'm convinced Patrick would have gone 3 to Columbus.

 

[denkiteki]

Making things up again?

He's scored at a 44 goal, 101 point pace this season. How is that considered not doing much?

And why penalize him for his birthdate? If Auston Matthews were a couple days younger he'd be in the McDavid draft. So what?

And based on how the draft went, I'm convinced Patrick would have gone 3 to Columbus.

He has played 33 games, pace vs games played. Its like if someone played 1 game and scored 2 points in that game. Would you take him over someone who has 120 points in 70 games?

Again its for comparison. If Mattews was in McDavid's draft, he would be top 3 or top 2 in a draft with a generation talent and one who's close. Using the previous years draft is pretty normal when comparing prospects because they are similar age.

Like i said, TSN/Sportsnet made the analysis that Patrick would not be in the top 4 if he was int he draft last year. His stock has NOT improved this year. Its the same reason Dylan Strome went 3rd overall in 2015... he had a 129 point year yet was still 3rd overall (which again points to the fact stats isn't everything). Heck Alex DeBrincat went 39th overall last year after 104 + 101 points seasons (and leads the OHL in scoring by a wide margin this year).

Patrick is favorite to be 1st overall but his value is less than top 3 picks in the last 2 years. Not saying he won't be a good player or an all-star... just not someone worth selling out (trading a lot of assets to move up) for. There are actually quite a few good C prospects in the draft this year... to a point where its more valuable to move down if you find a good trading partner vs moving up.

I'm actually more interested in Pettersson because he plays on the same team as Dahlen (2nd in scoring behind Dahlen). He's ranked ~10th so we could trade down and still probably draft him plus we could use more picks. Remember this year we have no 4th or 5th round pick (Edm for Larsen, forgot the conditions) and no 6th (NYR). We will get a 1st or 4th from SJ (4th unless they win the cup) and might get a 2nd from CBJ (unlikely since most teams past till the very last year aka next year for CBJ). In another words, we likely only have 6 picks this year so trading down a few spots for an extra pick or 2 isn't a bad idea (instead of trading up). Benning has actually had decent success with his later picks (more success than earlier picks) so playing by the numbers, it probably makes sense to pick later and more often anyways...

 

[F A N]

And why penalize him for his birthdate? If Auston Matthews were a couple days younger he'd be in the McDavid draft. So what?

You mean older. The point is how Matthews would have ranked in the McDavid draft.

And based on how the draft went, I'm convinced Patrick would have gone 3 to Columbus.

I'm not going to bother predicting what Columbus would have done had Patrick been available, but between Dubois, Tkachuk, and Patrick, I would have selected Patrick. I see Patrick as more of a safe pick as a potential #1 C and obviously more valuable than Tkachuk.

 

[F A N]

I'm actually more interested in Pettersson because he plays on the same team as Dahlen (2nd in scoring behind Dahlen). He's ranked ~10th so we could trade down and still probably draft him plus we could use more picks.

I don't think Pettersson is a top 10 pick. If the Canucks get a chance to draft Nolan Patrick, it would most likely be a stupid move to trade down to select Pettersson.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

I don't think Pettersson is a top 10 pick. If the Canucks get a chance to draft Nolan Patrick, it would most likely be a stupid move to trade down to select Pettersson.

The only way it makes sense is to grab a prospect or a pick worth at least a 2nd round pick and a conditional pick. Something like we swap 5th or something if the other team is picking higher in that round and we see a guy we like.

 

[CanaFan]

No trade downs please. Take the guy you like best at the highest spot possible. It's impossible to predict what other teams will do and just because a guy is "ranked" 10th doesn't mean another team won't snatch him before you.

It's a risky game to play just to pick up a mid round pick. I'd rather stay put and leave getting extra picks for the TDL when they can be acquired at a lower price for fringe players.

 

[Love]

I just think it's stupid when people suggest Patrick doesn't have 1C potential.

Agreed.

You will hear people say about Patrick, "He'll be a good 2C. A 60pt guy with a good 2 way game." And statements like this are not only stupid but they are an oxymoron. There is simply no such thing as a 60pt, 2 way 2C. That is a 1C.