2016 Draft Thread | 9

[iFan]

Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton all drafting ahead of us.

Yep, sounds about right.

Doesn't really bother me if we get Dubios, if he can be that #1C we get exactly what we need, we need that more so than Puljujarvi.

 

[PM]

Why people think trading back to take a lesser player is a good thing is beyond me.

I think it's a preemptive defense of another possible terrible Benning move. They are warming themselves up to the idea so they can mindlessly defend it for months afterwards. Normally I would t worry about it but with Benning anything can happen and we should always be worried.

 

[PM]

I hope Columbus tells Calgary to go suck a lemon. No way the Oilers trade that high a pick with them, that just can't happen between those two franchises. That leaves us, the team that traded their best LW prospect for a fourth liner to a hated rival now looking to trade up. If Benning trades our pick to Calgary I will be very upset.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

 

[SgtToody]

This article seems like an odd mix between Mogilny to Bure and Connor McHindu. Trashing Benning, justifying trades from both sides, starting off the article stating its just pure speculation, and trading away our 1st round pick.


Why people think trading back to take a lesser player is a good thing is beyond me.

We're not in the top-3 so a move back 2-3 spots does not mean we necessarily get the 'lesser' player...
2010 5th o/a was Nino; 7th Skinner, 9th the good Granlund
2007- 5th Alzner; 7th Voracek, 9th Couture... There's no guarantee but positional need and biases are putting some blue-chip talent back a notch or two (Brown, not fast; Keller, too small)... Time and time again we see someone from the pack slip through. Who ever they get I'm going to cheer on but in this game of speculation it's good fun to pick our favourites (as I did in 1990 and called out for them to pick Tkatchuk w/ that 2nd first rounder...)

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

IMO Winnipeg should be looking to move if anything. But they are going to be a force in a few years, they already have a decent team and their prospect pool is hella deep.

 

[MDtoGF]

This article seems like an odd mix between Mogilny to Bure and Connor McHindu. Trashing Benning, justifying trades from both sides, starting off the article stating its just pure speculation, and trading away our 1st round pick.


Why people think trading back to take a lesser player is a good thing is beyond me.

Honestly in this draft .. Behind the top three the next ten forwards are all in a similar grouping. I suggested Jost because he would provide another two way presence and could develop chem with Boeser . Jost is not a lesser player by any sense , he did outstanding against Finland featuring Puljujarvi .. Canada shut him down that day. It was speculation cause I was stating the fact that it would take a lot for the Canucks to move . They could trade back and pick a number of players that could be NHL ready before Dubois.

 

[CherryToke]

Honestly in this draft .. Behind the top three the next ten forwards are all in a similar grouping. I suggested Jost because he would provide another two way presence and could develop chem with Boeser . Jost is not a lesser player by any sense , he did outstanding against Finland featuring Puljujarvi .. Canada shut him down that day. It was speculation cause I was stating the fact that it would take a lot for the Canucks to move . They could trade back and pick a number of players that could be NHL ready before Dubois.

Maybe at the start of the year that was true. At this time there is a clear top 5.

 

[nuckfan insk]

If Dubois is there great if not I'm all for moving down and acquiring picks, the one thing Benning does well is draft, so give him more swings at the plate

 

[Boose Brudreau]

Keller is a good player, but I'm afraid that if he has injuries (very possible because of lack of size) that he might turn into another Schroeder. Someone that is very very talented and has top end potential but isn't able to reach it because of injuries that hurt his development.

Of course you can't predict injuries. But, due to his size it's easier for him to receive those kinds of injuries. If he was just a little bigger he'd be up with Tkachuk and Dubios

Schroeder's biggest problem was, IMO, mental. He just didn't have the compete level/fearlessness to be successful at the NHL level. I suspect a decent number of scouts saw some evidence of this, which, along with his attitude issues, contributed to his fall on draft day.

Keller's usable speed (torque/change of pace), agility and IQ are better than what Schroeder brought to the table and should help him avoid heavy contact while allowing him to play in high traffic areas. He's also got a bigger frame than Schroeder and should be able to add enough muscle mass to play at ~185lbs. FWIW he's about the same size as Parise was when drafted.

All that said, if he isn't fearless at the NHL level, he won't have too successful a career. Dubois and Tkachuk have less downside (as Virtanen did in 14) because they can contribute from the bottom six if their offensive games don't translate. Can't really go wrong with any of the three, but if it's Keller + fabbro/Cholow/fox or Tkachuk.....i'd role the dice on the two for one deal.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Edit: nvm...misread the chart.

This shows the value of stockpiling draft picks.

 

[Huggy]

that chart argues 5 2nds and 4 3rds are worth 1st overall.

i see why hockey media has entred ****

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

This article seems like an odd mix between Mogilny to Bure and Connor McHindu. Trashing Benning, justifying trades from both sides, starting off the article stating its just pure speculation, and trading away our 1st round pick.


Why people think trading back to take a lesser player is a good thing is beyond me.

"Lesser" is a bit of a stretch if you're still picking the best d-man in the draft in the "lesser" spot. I agree i'd rather pick the higher rated player but getting two great players is also great.

Example:

Say the Canucks had 5th (Hanifin) in 2015 and traded it to get 7th (Proporov) and 20th (Ek-Eriksson).

You didn't take the NHL ready d-man but you took a guy who might long-term be better and got another player who will more than likely be an NHLer with top 6 upside.

Take 2014 as another example:

Michael Dal Colle went 5th, Fluery 7th, Schmaltz 20th.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

Take Dubois or Tkachuk. Don't try and outsmart everyone by "adding value by trading down" it seldom works

 

[Gaunce4gm]

"Lesser" is a bit of a stretch if you're still picking the best d-man in the draft in the "lesser" spot. I agree i'd rather pick the higher rated player but getting two great players is also great.

Example:

Say the Canucks had 5th (Hanifin) in 2015 and traded it to get 7th (Proporov) and 20th (Ek-Eriksson).

You didn't take the NHL ready d-man but you took a guy who might long-term be better and got another player who will more than likely be an NHLer with top 6 upside.

Take 2014 as another example:

Michael Dal Colle went 5th, Fluery 7th, Schmaltz 20th.

Gross. Not a good argument to trade down. He looks awful and so far the upside of Dal Colle >>>>> Schmaltz. Without Caggiula and Boeser his season would not have been that impressive

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Gross. Not a good argument to trade down. He looks awful and so far the upside of Dal Colle >>>>> Schmaltz. Without Caggiula and Boeser his season would not have been that impressive

? He's (Fluery) maybe not a top 3 d-man but his numbers are certainly respectable. His trajectory seems to be on par with Gudbranson as a comparable with a touch more offense.

Dal Colle has the upside but the point still holds if you have all kinds of spots to fill maybe another scoring winger isn't the answer.

 

[coldsteel79]

? He's (Fluery) maybe not a top 3 d-man but his numbers are certainly respectable. His trajectory seems to be on par with Gudbranson as a comparable with a touch more offense.

Dal Colle has the upside but the point still holds if you have all kinds of spots to fill maybe another scoring winger isn't the answer.

I know the fleury kid personally he is not on par with gudbranson, the kid is super lazy and entitled. Maybe he will mature and develop but I'm really glad Canucks didn't take him.

 

[Nick Lang]

This article seems like an odd mix between Mogilny to Bure and Connor McHindu. Trashing Benning, justifying trades from both sides, starting off the article stating its just pure speculation, and trading away our 1st round pick.


Why people think trading back to take a lesser player is a good thing is beyond me.

Yeah, that would be an absolutely foolish thing to do. It would have to be for a Strome, Domi, or Duclair, where we throw in Hansen, and Burrows or something insanely crazy to even entertain.

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

I can't help, but try to read between the lines on what Linden/Benning say about each guy .

 

[Trelane]

I'd also make the deal if Dubois Is taken, but I'd go one step further, and try to flip 7 to Montreal for 9 +39

5+64 for
9,20,37,39

Get a great d (sergachev, juolevi, chychrun @9
Hope for clague benson in round 2
And pick 20 bean Stanley fabbro ?

Habs won't care a lick for the 7th once PLD is off the board. Kid's sentiments better not factor into it. He's a chattel like the rest of them for a good chunk of his career. Benning better not yield for anything but an exorbitant return.

Looks like folks have gotten so used to having an ace drafting GM you've forgotten how the other half lives, or how we used to muck about not long ago. Expecting the sun, the moon and the stars from post 10 pick with any consistency is... ambitious. Even JB tire pumpers know he'll not always nail those 20s, never mind 30+ in a weak draft after the 1st round.

 

[Pip]

I know the fleury kid personally he is not on par with gudbranson, the kid is super lazy and entitled. Maybe he will mature and develop but I'm really glad Canucks didn't take him.

Sounds like Virtanen

 

[Mad Brills*]

I can't help, but try to read between the lines on what Linden/Benning say about each guy .

please no.

 

[The Drop]

That sportsnet article is hilarious.

Benning stating that their goal is to hit on their first and second round picks and then get 2 more hits from rounds 3-7.

How the **** you gonna hit on a 2nd when you trade them away?

 

[CanaFan]

That sportsnet article is hilarious.

Benning stating that their goal is to hit on their first and second round picks and then get 2 more hits from rounds 3-7.

How the **** you gonna hit on a 2nd when you trade them away?

He says that every year then says the prices were too high and teams all wanted their "good young prospects like Bo Horvat and that is a non-starter".

It's all spin to make it seem they are trying so hard to get younger but in the end the only thing they actually do is trade picks and kids for older vets.

Say one thing, do another. This regime's MO.

 

[VanJack]

That sportsnet article is hilarious.

Benning stating that their goal is to hit on their first and second round picks and then get 2 more hits from rounds 3-7.

How the **** you gonna hit on a 2nd when you trade them away?

Benning is saying all the right things about acquiring more picks in this draft, but how?...unless he trades back in the first round, he just doesn't have anything to offer that's reasonable to acquire more picks....blew his chance to acquire more picks at the deadline when he couldn't deal any of his UFA's...still an epic 'fail' for a 28th place team.