First overall pick

[LeftCoast]

I think Nico Hischier is a bit underrated because he was under the radar in the Swiss junior system until this season. The Swiss junior system has developed a few NHL players recently (Timo Meier, Nino Niederreider, Kevin Fiala and Sven Baertschi are the top forwards in recent years), but no "elite" level talents. The Anze Kopitar story is a cautionary tale about discounting the top player in a lesser league. It's hard to say "if Hischier were Canadian he would be ranked 1st" because if he were Canadian he would have been thoroughly scouted since he was in Bantam, and would have played with and/or against the top junior / minor hockey players of his age group over an extended number of seasons.

I think it is also safe to say that Nolan Patrick could be a bit overrated because he is Canadian and HAS been scouted since his ********* (voice) dropped. So when he has a couple of injuries and misses half of the Pre-Draft season, he gets the benefit of the doubt; scouts have seen enough of him to maintain that he is arguably the best player in his age group.

Both players however benefit from a weak draft. No one believes Patrick or Hischier are in the same category as McDavid, Matthews, Laine, Eichel, etc. But outside of the numbers put up in junior, it's hard to say how they would compare to other #1 and #2 picks. How would a Patrick / Hischier draft compare to a MacKinnon / Barkov oa RNH / Landeskog draft?

 

[Icebreakers]

Hischier is Ehlers level prospect. Patrick is Reinhart/Bennett lvl prospect.

 

[Icebreakers]

I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if Patrick put up the same kind of numbers in his first 2 years as Reinhart, 40-45 points rookie year, 45-50 points sophomore year. Same with hischier and Ehlers.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if Patrick put up the same kind of numbers in his first 2 years as Reinhart, 40-45 points rookie year, 45-50 points sophomore year. Same with hischier and Ehlers.

I can see this.

Not sure where the Bennett comparison came from, but I can see something similar to Reinhart in his first two seasons. Reinhart is a 1st line level puck possession player and I expect he will continue to progress, just as I see Patrick progressing into a top line player.

Hischier and Ehlers? Sure, I guess I can see it. Hischier being a C version of Ehlers. Another good puck possession player, a bit undersized but checks all the right boxes.

 

[Icebreakers]

I didn't mean stylistic comparison. I just meant in terms of they are on the same level or tier as prospects. I expect Patrick to top out at around the same production as a logan couture.

 

[denkiteki]

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.

Yeah reason i suggest we could trade down. Of course the value will have to be there for a trade to happen (one of the reasons you don't see too many trade ups).

For example last year, move from #11 to #12 cost the Sens a 3rd round pick. If we get the #1 overall pick, trading it would require at least an additional first + other pick(s)/prospect(s)

It cost the Islanders a 3rd and a 7th to move from #12 to #16 in 2009 (this also shows how few trades there actually are for moving up or down... most of the time these picks are dealt for players).

 

[Yggdrasil]

what a crappy draft year. next year is sooo much better. better to tank twice in a row, tank to get top 5. tank to get 1st overall next year.

then we can really start gunning for the cup in the next 3-4 years.

 

[denkiteki]

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.

If we're trading down from 1st overall, (unless its just a drop to 2nd), the cost will be at least a future 1st + (or prospect replacement @ that value). Unlike the deadline where rental players should get move for whatever value we can get at the end (since after the deadline, they basically have no value), the 1st overall pick doesn't exactly need to be traded (again reason for so few trades). The return has to be worthwhile to pass on the position and in the case of 1st overall, it starts with an additional 1st (and in the case of someone like McDavid, it would start at multiple future 1st+). Although if possible, a smart GM will always try to do what the Devils did last year... get some value for trading down 1 spot and likely still getting the player they wanted.

 

[Yggdrasil]

really wish they had tanked for matthews instead of winning those california games.

then trade both sedins + somebody for 2nd overall pick get laine

in 2-3 years

Dahlen Matthews Laine
Goldobin Horvat Boeser
Sven Sutter Virtanen
Gaunce Granlund Dorsett

Juolevi Tryamkin
Hutton Stecher
??? ???

Demko

= cup.

 

[denkiteki]

really wish they had tanked for matthews instead of winning those california games.

then trade both sedins + somebody for 2nd overall pick get laine

in 2-3 years

Dahlen Matthews Laine
Goldobin Horvat Boeser
Sven Sutter Virtanen
Gaunce Granlund Dorsett

Juolevi Tryamkin
Hutton Stecher
??? ???

Demko

= cup.

Even if we tanked harder, odds are we wouldn't have won the lottery...

Also Juolevi is gone because uhhh... you can't have the 1st, 2nd, and 5th overall picks in the same draft without making yet another trade... Plus if we could have a do over, no way i would take Juolevi now (wasn't happy with that pick even then tho i gave Benning the benefit of the doubt... i think majority expected/wanted Tkachuk).

Finally Sedins even @ 50% won't get the 2nd overall pick. At least not anymore. They would've easily gotten that years ago but right now they are no where near that value. Even last year they still held decent value but after basically a 40-45 point year (each), their value is much lower and likely will keep dropping unless they get off to a great start next season (in which case, 0 chance they get traded...). And of course if they don't get premium return, then fans won't be happy about trading them given what they have done for the city/team (so trading them will really be next to impossible).

 

[manroth19]

You hear this crap all the time come draft time ekblad woulda went 5th behind jones Matthews woulda went 3rd maybe even 4th behind strome blah blah blah. The guys 6'3, good defensively, put up 100 points in the dub and won playoff mvp.....he woulda been in the conversation for top 3 easily. Maybe even 1.
If we land Patrick I will do cart wheels. This 2c 3c talk is crap

 

[PetterssonSimp]

If we're trading down from 1st overall, (unless its just a drop to 2nd), the cost will be at least a future 1st + (or prospect replacement @ that value). Unlike the deadline where rental players should get move for whatever value we can get at the end (since after the deadline, they basically have no value), the 1st overall pick doesn't exactly need to be traded (again reason for so few trades). The return has to be worthwhile to pass on the position and in the case of 1st overall, it starts with an additional 1st (and in the case of someone like McDavid, it would start at multiple future 1st+). Although if possible, a smart GM will always try to do what the Devils did last year... get some value for trading down 1 spot and likely still getting the player they wanted.

Seeing as this team of almost 45 years has never had a 1st overall pick you don't trade down from #1 overall. The post was a reply to the idea of trading down from #3 or 4 to a lower pick and grab Petterson. So your whole post makes literally zero sense had you read the thread. But ok sure

 

[PetterssonSimp]

You hear this crap all the time come draft time ekblad woulda went 5th behind jones Matthews woulda went 3rd maybe even 4th behind strome blah blah blah. The guys 6'3, good defensively, put up 100 points in the dub and won playoff mvp.....he woulda been in the conversation for top 3 easily. Maybe even 1.
If we land Patrick I will do cart wheels. This 2c 3c talk is crap

Well RNH should be the biggest cautionary tale when considering Patrick at 1. All those injuries just doesn't spell Great imho. Good sure, probably every day of the week. But is the idea to settle for Good when the kid at 2 screams Great in every other way except his floor not being as high as Patrick's? I get the worries about an almost Boom/Bust type guy in Nico, but he oozes talent and speed. Basically the opposite of how the Canucks have been built from day 1 franchise opening its doors.
IMHO you're comparing drafting Trevor Linden to Pavel Bure in terms of talent potential. Sure I love Trev but I'll argue to this day the Canucks have had one true superstar player in its history from the moment he walked onto the ice. Not having to be developed into star players.

 

[me2]

Seeing as this team of almost 45 years has never had a 1st overall pick you don't trade down from #1 overall. The post was a reply to the idea of trading down from #3 or 4 to a lower pick and grab Petterson. So your whole post makes literally zero sense had you read the thread. But ok sure

we had one in 99 IIRC we trade up (so we could guarantee the Sedins) then traded down once other teams agreed not to take a Sedin.

 

[denkiteki]

Seeing as this team of almost 45 years has never had a 1st overall pick you don't trade down from #1 overall. The post was a reply to the idea of trading down from #3 or 4 to a lower pick and grab Petterson. So your whole post makes literally zero sense had you read the thread. But ok sure

Read it again? and i'm implying common sense in that your return differs depending on your draft position -> position you trade down to.

I.e. from #1 -> #10 (lets assume thats the lowest spot you can get Petterson) then the return is higher than #4 -> #10. There hasn't been many (any) trade up/down in the top 10 for years, which is why i used the 2 examples i did use. Any time a top 10 pick has been moved (recently) involved young players going the other way (i.e. Bobby Ryan, Jordan Staal, etc).

As far as getting the #1 pick for the first time... remember the original argument here that Patrick (assumed #1 pick) has a lot less value than recent #1 picks. He projects like a top 10 pick in last year's draft... found an article on this (Sept last year but his value now is similar to what it was then due to the fact he was hurt to start the year on same pace production pace as last year)...

http://www.tsn.ca/mckenzie-s-pre-season-ranking-the-nolan-patrick-draft-1.567410

The consensus amongst scouts surveyed by TSN is that Patrick wouldn't have displaced any of the top four picks in last year's draft. Depending on the scout, they retroactively rank Patrick anywhere between No. 5 and 10, based on his 2015-16 season.

So sure getting #1 pick would be great (beats #4 or lower) but this isn't the ideal year to get 1st overall for the first time. Next year might be the better year to get 1st overall or ideally to get extra 1st (since next year's draft is suppose to be deeper with quite a few similar projections as Patrick).

 

[F A N]

I think Nico Hischier is a bit underrated because he was under the radar in the Swiss junior system until this season. The Swiss junior system has developed a few NHL players recently (Timo Meier, Nino Niederreider, Kevin Fiala and Sven Baertschi are the top forwards in recent years), but no "elite" level talents. The Anze Kopitar story is a cautionary tale about discounting the top player in a lesser league. It's hard to say "if Hischier were Canadian he would be ranked 1st" because if he were Canadian he would have been thoroughly scouted since he was in Bantam, and would have played with and/or against the top junior / minor hockey players of his age group over an extended number of seasons.

I think it is also safe to say that Nolan Patrick could be a bit overrated because he is Canadian and HAS been scouted since his ********* (voice) dropped. So when he has a couple of injuries and misses half of the Pre-Draft season, he gets the benefit of the doubt; scouts have seen enough of him to maintain that he is arguably the best player in his age group.

Those are good points but I think it can go both ways. Remember Tavares and Ekblad? Scout even questioned their upside because they have been so heavily scouted that every mistake is magnified. I think Patrick could belong in the same boat. It's unfortunate that Patrick didn't play in the WJC.

I personally haven't decided myself what I would like Benning to do if he had the 1st overall pick. I was previously leaning towards Patrick as the incumbent but I think Hischier might be the better pick. He's the more dynamic player with his skating. I could also see Benning going with Hischier as Benning puts a lot of stock in international tournaments.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

we had one in 99 IIRC we trade up (so we could guarantee the Sedins) then traded down once other teams agreed not to take a Sedin.

We had 2. Traded for 3 from Chicago. It's in the history. Easy to look up. The Trashers I mean Thrashers had 1 from the start. I think you're thinking of the gentlemens agreement between Burke and who was leading ATL at the time to take Stefan at 1 who he liked anyways and the Canucks would take Sedin sedin at 2/3

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Read it again? and i'm implying common sense in that your return differs depending on your draft position -> position you trade down to.

I.e. from #1 -> #10 (lets assume thats the lowest spot you can get Petterson) then the return is higher than #4 -> #10. There hasn't been many (any) trade up/down in the top 10 for years, which is why i used the 2 examples i did use. Any time a top 10 pick has been moved (recently) involved young players going the other way (i.e. Bobby Ryan, Jordan Staal, etc).

As far as getting the #1 pick for the first time... remember the original argument here that Patrick (assumed #1 pick) has a lot less value than recent #1 picks. He projects like a top 10 pick in last year's draft... found an article on this (Sept last year but his value now is similar to what it was then due to the fact he was hurt to start the year on same pace production pace as last year)...

http://www.tsn.ca/mckenzie-s-pre-season-ranking-the-nolan-patrick-draft-1.567410



So sure getting #1 pick would be great (beats #4 or lower) but this isn't the ideal year to get 1st overall for the first time. Next year might be the better year to get 1st overall or ideally to get extra 1st (since next year's draft is suppose to be deeper with quite a few similar projections as Patrick).

Again pal. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Really great reading comprehension skills pal.
I'll say it again, I won't trade from 1 or 2 as I want Hischier. The idea of trading down was based on doing so to grab Petterson (teammate of Dahlin, linemates too). I said it only makes sense if the Canucks are receiving at least a 2nd or equivalent prospect. I have no interest in moving down myself as I've stated many times I'd rather just grab another defenceman and trade Chris Tanev for a Mika Zib like player if I'm not getting one of the two centres at the top. A pipeline of defenceman has been one of the better success paths of NHL teams lately. When I look around at the Edmonton's or Toronto's with their weak defence core and oodles of forward talent and the cost it took to grab 1 defenceman who I don't think is even at the Tanev level well I'd rather build towards that, use the now guy for now help up front and have the potential guy develop while this team is crap.

But please. Keep telling me what I actually meant to say. Please I'm curious

 

[LeftCoast]

In this draft, if you are outside of the top 2, there could be a good reason to trade down. There is very little concensus on the players ranked between #3 and about #15; BPA is pretty much a pickem. But if you are sitting in the 3rd or 4th spot and a team in the 5-7th spot really, really wants a specific player, then you can gain an asset (probably a 2nd round pick) and still choose a player ranked pretty similar to where you were originally going to pick.

But there is no way you trade down out of the top 2 unless the return is really significant (or I suppose unless your internal analysis is pretty meh on Hischier and Patrick I suppose).

 

[manroth19]

Well RNH should be the biggest cautionary tale when considering Patrick at 1. All those injuries just doesn't spell Great imho. Good sure, probably every day of the week. But is the idea to settle for Good when the kid at 2 screams Great in every other way except his floor not being as high as Patrick's? I get the worries about an almost Boom/Bust type guy in Nico, but he oozes talent and speed. Basically the opposite of how the Canucks have been built from day 1 franchise opening its doors.
IMHO you're comparing drafting Trevor Linden to Pavel Bure in terms of talent potential. Sure I love Trev but I'll argue to this day the Canucks have had one true superstar player in its history from the moment he walked onto the ice. Not having to be developed into star players.

I'm with you on taking nico over Patrick to be honest. I was kinda ranting because of all the negativity towards Patrick.

 

[Hammer79]

We had 2. Traded for 3 from Chicago. It's in the history. Easy to look up. The Trashers I mean Thrashers had 1 from the start. I think you're thinking of the gentlemens agreement between Burke and who was leading ATL at the time to take Stefan at 1 who he liked anyways and the Canucks would take Sedin sedin at 2/3

No, this is incorrect, the Thrashers didn't have #1 from the start.

Lightning originally had #1
Thrashers had #2
Canucks had #3
Blackhawks had #4

Canucks traded Bryan McCabe, 2000 or 2001 first round pick (2000 #11-Pavel Vorobiev) to Blackhawks for 1999 first round pick (#4-Pavel Brendl) on 1999-06-25

So Canucks now had #3 and #4

Lightning trade down to #4; Traded • 1999 first round pick (#1-Patrik Stefan) to Canucks for • 1999 first round pick (#4-Pavel Brendl) • 1999 third round pick (#75-Brett Scheffelmaier) • 1999 third round pick (#88-Jimmie Olvestad) on 1999-06-26

Canucks now have #1 and #3 picks

Rangers pick up #4 from the Lightning; Traded Dan Cloutier, Niklas Sundstrom, 2000 first round pick (#8-Nikita Alexeev), 2000 third round pick (#74-Igor Radulov) to Lightning for 1999 first round pick (#4-Pavel Brendl) on 1999-06-26

Canucks now trade down from #1 to #2 with gentleman's agreement that Thrashers do not take a Sedin.

Traded 1999 first round pick (#1-Patrik Stefan) to Thrashers for 1999 first round pick (#2-Daniel Sedin), 2000 conditional third round pick (#67-Max Birbraer) on 1999-06-25

Canucks finish trading with #2 and #3 picks in their possession.

 

[F A N]

Yeah reason i suggest we could trade down. Of course the value will have to be there for a trade to happen (one of the reasons you don't see too many trade ups).

It may just be semantics but I see it more as we don't see many teams trade down because it's not worth it. There are far more teams looking to trade up than to trade down. It's like having tickets to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. The problem isn't that there are no buyers or buyers willing to pay a good price. The problem is you want to go to the game too. It's like the 2012 draft. Apparently, the Islanders were willing to give Columbus their entire draft to move up and select Murray. That's "worth it" to any team that thinks they can draft an equal/better/comparable player at #4.

If we're trading down from 1st overall, (unless its just a drop to 2nd), the cost will be at least a future 1st + (or prospect replacement @ that value).

Right, but I can't see a deal worth trading down from the top 2 spots in this year's draft. For one thing, there's almost no way the Canucks are coming out of this draft without at least a high mid first round pick (I don't think trading out of this draft is an option or fits into management's MO). And in order for for them to even think of moving down past the middle of the top 10, teams will have to offer a very significant prospect. Teams rarely take a future pick as a big part of the deal due to the uncertainty and I can't see this management team essentially trading out of the first 2 spots because they feel they will get better value unless there are guys they really like that they are confident they can get by trading down.

Keep in mind that while there are still good players to be had they aren't valued as high as maybe in past years. So if you move down and draft a Baertschi or Logan Brown type prospect and whatever you get such as a prospect or 1st round pick is it worth trading down from the top 2 spots? I would say no unless I really don't like the two guys up at the top and or really don't see much of a difference and there are several guys I like that I know I can get with a later pick.

Well RNH should be the biggest cautionary tale when considering Patrick at 1. All those injuries just doesn't spell Great imho. Good sure, probably every day of the week. But is the idea to settle for Good when the kid at 2 screams Great in every other way except his floor not being as high as Patrick's? I get the worries about an almost Boom/Bust type guy in Nico, but he oozes talent and speed. Basically the opposite of how the Canucks have been built from day 1 franchise opening its doors.

I disagree with your philosophy. You don't draft a guy based on upside alone without assessing the odds of that player reaching that ceiling. Many scouts consider Virtanen to have perhaps the greatest upside in his draft year, that doesn't mean you select him 1st overall.

I don't see Nico as a boom or bust type. I also don't see RNH as any sort of cautionary tale except for not playing a guy in the NHL if he's not physically ready. At the time of the draft, RNH had the highest ceiling. Scheifele might have been the only guy up there but we're just talking about ceiling. Landeskog was the guy with questionable ceiling. Patrick would be seen as a success if he can step in and play as well as RNH did in his rookie year.

 

[denkiteki]

It may just be semantics but I see it more as we don't see many teams trade down because it's not worth it. There are far more teams looking to trade up than to trade down. It's like having tickets to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. The problem isn't that there are no buyers or buyers willing to pay a good price. The problem is you want to go to the game too. It's like the 2012 draft. Apparently, the Islanders were willing to give Columbus their entire draft to move up and select Murray. That's "worth it" to any team that thinks they can draft an equal/better/comparable player at #4.

Actually its a bit of both the price and teams willing to pay the price. Of course there are cases (i.e. McDavid), where you can pretty much offer the farm and the other team will not make the trade. But then there are times when you shop around and realistically there just isn't any buyers because the cost to move up a few spots is often not worth it. Take the 2010 trade an example (since pretty much every top pick in that trade has been moved and that trade is actually comparable in some ways to this trade).

There were 2 players that were considered to be possible #1 (Hall and Seguin). Hall ended up #1 but Seguin realistically seems to be the better player (arguable). But if you drop down to #3, you'll see from #3 - #14, there are pretty much equal number of good players and bust (including #3 Gudbranson as a bust while #12 Fowler or #14 Schwartz being great value at their spots). Note the best player in the draft actually happened to be @ #16 as well.

Teams that are looking to or trying to move up from these positions often won't actually give up the price the seller wants... that and not many teams are willing to give up future 1st unless they have a good idea that first isn't in the top 10 the next year. And teams that aren't drafting in the top 10 next year likely are drafting pretty late this year that the "selling" team don't want to drop that many spots. I.e. again using the 2010 draft, how many teams want to end up losing the #2 overall pick like the Leafs did because they traded away that 1st early? You rarely see teams willing to give up their 1st round pick until they are into the season (and in most cases they only give up their 1st if they figure they'll be in the playoff).

Take a look at the trades done last year (after the top 10)

#11 for #12 + #80
#16 + cap dump 7.5mil for #20 + #53
#18 + 79 for #22 + #36
#26 for #28 + #87

Which basically implies that dropping a few spots in the top 10 will cost a 1st in the future draft. Or for top 5, the cost might even be higher (since the higher you go, the more value the pick has). Its not an exact science but NFL actually has a rough value table for draft spots (of course it doesn't translate to the NHL given NFL players are generally ready to contribute right away, but the idea is similar).

Right, but I can't see a deal worth trading down from the top 2 spots in this year's draft. For one thing, there's almost no way the Canucks are coming out of this draft without at least a high mid first round pick (I don't think trading out of this draft is an option or fits into management's MO). And in order for for them to even think of moving down past the middle of the top 10, teams will have to offer a very significant prospect. Teams rarely take a future pick as a big part of the deal due to the uncertainty and I can't see this management team essentially trading out of the first 2 spots because they feel they will get better value unless there are guys they really like that they are confident they can get by trading down.

It depends on the value. If we are @ the top 2 spot, then the only way i would trade down would be if i get at least a 2018 1st+. The 2018 draft is deeper than this draft and if the team is likely to miss the playoff, then getting an additional first is worth it (in my opinion at least). And even in that case, the trade down would have to be pretty much within the top 10 (which realistically means that pick will likely be a lottery pick too). Also note the farther the drop, the higher the cost (so #1 to #10 would be likely be 2017 - 2019 1st + 2017 2nd and possibly more...).

Keep in mind that while there are still good players to be had they aren't valued as high as maybe in past years. So if you move down and draft a Baertschi or Logan Brown type prospect and whatever you get such as a prospect or 1st round pick is it worth trading down from the top 2 spots? I would say no unless I really don't like the two guys up at the top and or really don't see much of a difference and there are several guys I like that I know I can get with a later pick.

I would say this draft has about 12 or so very good prospects then it drops a bit. One of the reasons i used Petterson as an example since he's ranked in the 10-12 range right now (plus being on the same team as Dahlen is a plus for both chemistry and for fans keeping track... )

Basically would have 2/3 of a 2nd line developing in the SHL together and could possibly take over for the Sedins when they retire/leave.

 

[F A N]

Actually its a bit of both the price and teams willing to pay the price.

My point is that teams are generally more eager to move up than teams are eager to move down. So my opinion is that more often than not teams looking to move up offer a more than fair price while teams considering moving down demand a ransom.

Take a look at the trades done last year (after the top 10)

#11 for #12 + #80
#16 + cap dump 7.5mil for #20 + #53
#18 + 79 for #22 + #36
#26 for #28 + #87

Which basically implies that dropping a few spots in the top 10 will cost a 1st in the future draft.

Umm... how did you come up with his conclusion? Your examples suggest that dropping a few spots cost a late 3rd round pick. Again, I am of the opinion that the standard seems to be that moving up 4 spots = a 2nd round pick.

It depends on the value. If we are @ the top 2 spot, then the only way i would trade down would be if i get at least a 2018 1st+. The 2018 draft is deeper than this draft and if the team is likely to miss the playoff, then getting an additional first is worth it (in my opinion at least). And even in that case, the trade down would have to be pretty much within the top 10 (which realistically means that pick will likely be a lottery pick too).

It does depend on the value. But my point is that the Canucks aren't leaving this draft without say a top 10 pick, which you seem to agree. And let's assume that the offer is 2017 late top 10 pick + 2018 1st. My point is that it is not worth it unless the conditions I stated were fulfilled. The main contention is the player the Canucks expect to get with that late top 10 pick. That player probably projects as a 2nd line or #4 D at best.

I would say this draft has about 12 or so very good prospects then it drops a bit. One of the reasons i used Petterson as an example since he's ranked in the 10-12 range right now (plus being on the same team as Dahlen is a plus for both chemistry and for fans keeping track... )

Basically would have 2/3 of a 2nd line developing in the SHL together and could possibly take over for the Sedins when they retire/leave.

I think that even in a weak draft there are good players to be drafted. I am only talking about the odds. If the Canucks are lucky and have one of the first two picks I think they get a chance to pick a player with real 1st line upside. I can't say the same outside of the top 3-4 prospects in this year's draft.

 

[GarryValkyrie]

I would be more interested trying to get 2 top 5 picks, doubt we have the assets to do that though. Maybe COL moves their 1st for a bunch of stuff including Tanev + and our 2nd and Columbus 2nd. The thought they can then recoup a 1st for Duchene and or Landeskog in another deal.