1st Overall Vs Tanev + 6th

[LickTheEnvelope]

I believe he'd be a high pick if he was in this draft.

Problem with Shinkaruk is that he was injured all year so any gains he might have made have stalled.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

I really like the idea that the Panthers would be interested in Burrows in addition to Tanev. Doesn't seem like its the case though.

 

[vanarchy]

Is there a chance Linden's comments on Reinhart are smoke and they'd make a surprise selection with that #1 or am I just running low on sleep?

 

[LiquidSnake]

Is there a chance Linden's comments on Reinhart are smoke and they'd make a surprise selection with that #1 or am I just running low on sleep?

i'm hoping the same and we take Bennet.

 

[F A N]

How many 1st rounder equivalent assets is it worth giving up for a non-consensus #1 pick in a very weak draft?

If there's one thing we've learned from the last handful of champions, it's that balance throughout a lineup is critical.

People are going crazy here. Sell the farm for one player then realize he has nobody to play with and nobody to play behind him.

I think it all depends on how good the guy the Canucks want to draft #1 overall will end up being and how good the farmhands are. Ya we used first round picks on Shinkaruk and Jensen etc. but how good will they be? I think we all have hopes but also reservations. At the end, I trust that Benning knows what he's doing.

You are right in that balance throughout the lineup is critical but having premier talent is also critical. The Kings, despite not being a high scoring team, didn't win the Cup with a bunch of 2nd line talents or 2nd pairing defensemen. They won it this with guys like Kopitar, Carter, Gaborik/Brown and Doughty. Blackhawks won it with Toews, Kane, Hossa, and Keith. The Blackhawks are a perfect example of a team that won the Cup after having significantly changed their supporting cast. You need depth but you can't without stars.

I dunno, I think Jensen had a pretty good thing going until Daniel got back into the lineup. He had 5 points in the 7 games Daniel missed and then Torts decided to mess with the line that was clicking. Sure, he ended the season poorly, but these are the ups and downs all young players go through.

I like Jensen and he's the type of player the Canucks want right now: NHL ready player with size and skill. However, Jensen's ultimate upside has always been a question mark. Personally, if it's a choice between Jensen and Shinkaruk, I would lean towards keeping Shinkaruk.

 

[Orca Smash]

Is there a chance Linden's comments on Reinhart are smoke and they'd make a surprise selection with that #1 or am I just running low on sleep?

Freidman certainly sounded like it was not a sure thing we take reinhart. He said as far as he knows we are high on both sams and he would give each a chance of getting taken by us.

 

[kanucks25]

Is there a chance Linden's comments on Reinhart are smoke and they'd make a surprise selection with that #1 or am I just running low on sleep?

I don't really understand why he would try to create a smokescreen. If you're going to pick 1st overall, you don't need to fool anybody.

I think it all depends on how good the guy the Canucks want to draft #1 overall will end up being and how good the farmhands are. Ya we used first round picks on Shinkaruk and Jensen etc. but how good will they be? I think we all have hopes but also reservations. At the end, I trust that Benning knows what he's doing.

You are right in that balance throughout the lineup is critical but having premier talent is also critical. The Kings, despite not being a high scoring team, didn't win the Cup with a bunch of 2nd line talents or 2nd pairing defensemen. They won it this with guys like Kopitar, Carter, Gaborik/Brown and Doughty. Blackhawks won it with Toews, Kane, Hossa, and Keith. The Blackhawks are a perfect example of a team that won the Cup after having significantly changed their supporting cast. You need depth but you can't without stars.



I like Jensen and he's the type of player the Canucks want right now: NHL ready player with size and skill. However, Jensen's ultimate upside has always been a question mark. Personally, if it's a choice between Jensen and Shinkaruk, I would lean towards keeping Shinkaruk.

Sure, you need stars and top-end players, but when you compile a bunch of good young prospects you have the chance of creating a great "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" team, and a better chance that one or two of those good players will become great (which is why I stress that you don't need to pick 1st overall to get an elite player, they're come up all over the 1st round).

Chicago definitely has top stars but both times they won the cup, they had an excellent bottom-6 and bottom-3 D-men.

As for the Kings, they have a true #1 D and #1 C, but everyone after that is a secondary player. Carter had a great year but was a second liner before it, Gaborik wasn't a 1st liner anymore with his injuries and inconsistency, Williams is a 2nd liner and Brown, Stoll and Richards are 3rd liners.

IMO Jensen and Shinkaruk both have a low trade value, and it's lower than what their value is to us. For us they could turn out to be legit top-6 forwards, but we won't get "top-6 forward value" in return if we were to trade them away.

That's what I hate about this trade. We're throwing away multiple potential good/great assets for one potential great asset.

 

[LiquidSnake]

I don't really understand why he would try to create a smokescreen. If you're going to pick 1st overall, you don't need to fool anybody.



Sure, you need stars and top-end players, but when you compile a bunch of good young prospects you have the chance of creating a great "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" team, and a better chance that one or two of those good players will become great (which is why I stress that you don't need to pick 1st overall to get an elite player, they're come up all over the 1st round).

Chicago definitely has top stars but both times they won the cup, they had an excellent bottom-6 and bottom-3 D-men.

As for the Kings, they have a true #1 D and #1 C, but everyone after that is a secondary player. Carter had a great year but was a second liner before it, Gaborik wasn't a 1st liner anymore with his injuries and inconsistency, Williams is a 2nd liner and Brown, Stoll and Richards are 3rd liners.

IMO Jensen and Shinkaruk both have a low trade value, and it's lower than what their value is to us. For us they could turn out to be legit top-6 forwards, but we won't get "top-6 forward value" in return if we were to trade them away.

That's what I hate about this trade. We're throwing away multiple potential good/great assets for one potential great asset.

I would argue that Carter is a top line player.

But they definitely won on their depth.

 

[vanarchy]

I wonder if they've kicked NYI's tires at all in regards to the 5th.

 

[kanucks25]

I would argue that Carter is a top line player.

But they definitely won on their depth.

He was this year because of the obvious impact he made at the Olympics and in the Playoffs but overall he's a 30+30=60 point player over his career, which is a 2nd liner, which is not elite. I'm a big proponent of "points aren't everything", but he isn't really one of those players that brings all the intangibles, either.

I guess you can call him a top-line player because he would be a 1st liner on a bunch of teams, but he's also not a top-25 forward and maybe not even a top-50 player.

I wonder if they've kicked NYI's tires at all in regards to the 5th.

Don't see what the point would be if it's a 6th+ for 5th thing.

If you mean straight up for the 5th, we don't have what they need. They want a top-6 LW (we don't have one at all let alone to trade) or a top-4 D-man (we have several but all of them have NTCs).

 

[Yossarian54]

i'm hoping the same and we take Bennet.

I'd prefer Reinhart but honestly there isn't much difference. Both have nearly identical PPGs, ES PPGs and primary assist levels. Bennett is younger but Reinhart has the much more impressive draft -1 and draft -2 years (seriously he would have been in contention for top-10 last year based on his 16-17 year old season). The only real question for me is do you take the guy who's touted as the playmaker or touted more as a bang-and-crash centre?

 

[VanillaCoke]

He was this year because of the obvious impact he made at the Olympics and in the Playoffs but overall he's a 30+30=60 point player over his career, which is a 2nd liner, which is not elite. I'm a big proponent of "points aren't everything", but he isn't really one of those players that brings all the intangibles, either.

Uhh. Wtf.

 

[Derp Kassian]

He was this year because of the obvious impact he made at the Olympics and in the Playoffs but overall he's a 30+30=60 point player over his career, which is a 2nd liner, which is not elite. I'm a big proponent of "points aren't everything", but he isn't really one of those players that brings all the intangibles, either.

I guess you can call him a top-line player because he would be a 1st liner on a bunch of teams, but he's also not a top-25 forward and maybe not even a top-50 player.
.

That's first line production.

 

[Bps21*]

Only 21 people scored 30 goals last year. 49 had 60 points.

 

[kanucks25]

Uhh. Wtf.

That's first line production.

It's first line production if your other first line forwards are PPG or close to it, or your team has a crap-load of depth like the Kings do.

Only 21 people scored 30 goals last year. 49 had 60 points.

85 had a higher PPG, and that's excluding the 7 players that had a higher PPG but only played 5 or less games.

 

[Willting*]

He was this year because of the obvious impact he made at the Olympics and in the Playoffs but overall he's a 30+30=60 point player over his career, which is a 2nd liner, which is not elite. I'm a big proponent of "points aren't everything", but he isn't really one of those players that brings all the intangibles, either.

I guess you can call him a top-line player because he would be a 1st liner on a bunch of teams, but he's also not a top-25 forward and maybe not even a top-50 player.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. 1st liner means top 90 F. Jeff Carter fits that description. He made the Olympics and but up PPG in the playoffs.

Any team would have him as their 1RW. He's been counted on to be an offensive catalyst in every team he's every played on.

Please don't argue otherwise.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. 1st liner means top 90 F. Jeff Carter fits that description. He made the Olympics and but up PPG in the playoffs.

Any team would have him as their 1RW. He's been counted on to be an offensive catalyst in every team he's every played on.

Please don't argue otherwise.

Wow, you're actually right!

Just kidding.

 

[Orca Smash]

FWIW i seen on pronmans twitter yesterday he said in his opinion shinkaruk + 6th for reinhart is a coin flip.

I know some people will disagree but he has seen alot of these prospects and whats available at 6.

 

[kanucks25]

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. 1st liner means top 90 F. Jeff Carter fits that description. He made the Olympics and but up PPG in the playoffs.

Any team would have him as their 1RW. He's been counted on to be an offensive catalyst in every team he's every played on.

Please don't argue otherwise.

Of course I'll argue, it wouldn't be fun otherwise

First of all, I already said he would be a first liner on a lot of teams (it was in the post you quoted). What I meant was that he's not an elite player; he's not someone who can anchor a 1st line, he'd just be a complementary player on it.

Secondly, there are about 7-8 RWs better than him, and even more centers. Half a great year really filled up the Carter wagon, huh? Jeez

I'll sort of use this a segue to get back on topic regarding Tanev + Jensen/Shinkaruk + 6th.

It's quite possible that one of Jensen/Shinkaruk or the 6th could turn into a 60 point player. If Reinhart is an 80 point player, are those 20 points really worth giving up Tanev? And then consider that the 2nd piece could also turn out to be 60p player...

 

[Orca Smash]

Also noticed this

Hope_Smoke ‏@Hope_Smoke 6m
McKenzie also said how, depending on the roster player, Tallon looks at Shinkaruk, roster player & one of Nylander/Ehlers/Ritchie...

Hope_Smoke ‏@Hope_Smoke 5m
...and evaluates that he's better off with that package than just walking away with Ekblad.

 

[J Canuck]

Has Buffalo completely ruled out trading their pick? Reinhart would still be available at 2nd. It shouldn't be hard to tempt them without compromising their tank for next year.

 

[thefeebster]

I'd prefer Reinhart but honestly there isn't much difference. Both have nearly identical PPGs, ES PPGs and primary assist levels. Bennett is younger but Reinhart has the much more impressive draft -1 and draft -2 years (seriously he would have been in contention for top-10 last year based on his 16-17 year old season). The only real question for me is do you take the guy who's touted as the playmaker or touted more as a bang-and-crash centre?

Regarding the bolded, are you reading this correctly? Reinhart is a year ahead of Bennett in terms of development and Bennett's 2nd season in the OHL was statistically much better than Reinhart's 2nd season in the WHL.

Bennett was also named top playmaker in the eastern conference for the OHL coaches poll (Also named the smartest player and best stickhandler). So I don't see it as the playmaker vs crash and bang center.

 

[DCantheDDad]

Also noticed this

Hope_Smoke ‏@Hope_Smoke 6m
McKenzie also said how, depending on the roster player, Tallon looks at Shinkaruk, roster player & one of Nylander/Ehlers/Ritchie...

Hope_Smoke ‏@Hope_Smoke 5m
...and evaluates that he's better off with that package than just walking away with Ekblad.

Yes, it is a solid package for the 1st overall and probably why Florida is saying they have a serious offer. It does make some sense for both teams buisness wise, but depending on the roster player, could hurt us going forward.

It is a risk, but one I wouldn't be upset with if we took.

 

[F A N]

It's quite possible that one of Jensen/Shinkaruk or the 6th could turn into a 60 point player. If Reinhart is an 80 point player, are those 20 points really worth giving up Tanev?

Seguin had 20 less points than Crosby this past season. Would you not trade Seguin and Tanev for Crosby?

 

[Proto]

The rumoured deal is obviously overpayment from the Canucks (as you'd expect), but the Canucks are unlikely to have this chance to acquire a potential #1 centre in the near future. It's a hard opportunity to pass up given where the Canucks are on their roster arc (Sedins again, Horvat more likely to be a 2nd liner in my opinion, etc.). I also think Reinhart is good enough to play in the league next year.

I'd do it because it reduces the chances of the Canucks mucking up the #6 pick in the draft. It also clearly indicates a move to quickly re-arming with elite young talent (that can be supplemented with free agents), rather than the protracted death spiral I am concerned we might see if the team tried to stick with this core.

It's a tough call though.