Pre-Game Talk: 2016 NHL Draft
- Thread starter HankieDankie
- Start date
- Status
I agree a more skilled version of Kesler is the way to go.
I love Chychrun but the lack of high end Dmen in this draft might mean he goes top 3, as he should IMO.
I'm normally a BPA guy but we really need to add some defensive depth in this draft.
Haven't taken a defender in the top 2 rounds of the draft since 2008 and it shows. And not a single defensive prospect of real quality in the system now that Hutton has stuck.
Haven't taken a defender in the top 2 rounds of the draft since 2008 and it shows. And not a single defensive prospect of real quality in the system now that Hutton has stuck.
Barring a miracle fall for Chychrun, we're likely sitting in that 6-10 range. Are you comfortable taking a guy like Fabbro or Bean there?
Personally, I'd be alright with Fabbro at 10, but I feel there's too much value in guys like McLeod/Nylander/Dubois to pass on, even if the need is great.
Second round, absolutely go defense above anything else. Guys like Samuel Girard (whom I feel is the exception to the QMJHL D rule), Jakob Cederholm or Victor Mete could be great pick-ups.
While I agree it is an organizational need, I can't rationalize 'reaching' for a player based on that need (not that you are necessarily saying that). Would hope that we can pick up at least 2 extra picks in the top 40 and use those on defensemen or, failing that, we flip those assets for a young defenseman from another organization. I don't think we *need* to draft a D with our first pick, unless it is clearly a BPA situation.
We just have so making fricking needs everywhere.
I have no idea where we'll pick or who will be available. Nobody had guys like Provorov or Reilly in the top-10 at this point in the year, and getting attached to the rankings how they look now is pointless. Especially since we'll possibly be adding other picks for guys like Hamhuis/Vrbata.
Obviously if we draft at #4 overall and Chychrun is gone, and there is nobody else considered top-10 material at that point, you don't reach for a defender. But adding defensive depth needs to be a priority. And I'm not just talking in round 1.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,040
- 12,311
If we don't have multiple 1sts then I will be face palming through the entire draft. We shouldn't have to wait until the 2nd round for a D man even if we have a top 10 pick.
Im all about the BPA mentality as well but at the end of the 1st round and beyond the BPA becomes much more subjective. In the top 10 its often quite clear who should be taken. So with that being said, take the BPA with our top 10 pick and target a D man with our second 1st.
I'm more in the camp where I believe drafting defenders are more of a crapshoot.
I think its smarter to trade for or sign 20 year old defenders than drafting an 18 year old one.
I don't mind if a team actually goes all forwards in a draft and only trades for young defender. I think this way, you get more "predicatable" hits in the drafts.
You only need 6 Dman, and we have Tanev and Hutton for the next while. Realistically we need 2 very good dman to round out the top 4. Bottom pairing D are a dime a dozen.
Canucks should be looking at teams with deep defense, who have some young defenseman performing well in the AHL/NCAA/Europe.
Theodore, Montour, Pulock, Walman etc..
Yeah, that's a great idea...if any team was willing to move their high-end defensive prospects. A lot of teams need/want a quality d-man right now. With the lack of quality d-men in the NHL, teams are holding on to their top defensive prospects for dear life with the hopes that they develop into one.
Bad News Benning
Fallin for Dahlin?
If this draft proves to be deep in quality defenseman (as in quality high first round talent like 2012) I have no problem taking one if it's BPA. I do not however want to see this team take the 2nd best defenseman on the board just because it fits a need. That's how you end up with Haydn Fleury.
good scouting can find some really good defenseman in the 2nd round and beyond....well unless you take Taylor Ellington or Alexandre Mallet....sigh.
You don't even need to draft a defenseman with a high first to restock the defense. Take one with offensive upside in the early-mid 2nd and acquire a bunch of 5th-7th round picks and use them on Defenseman. Sure volume will lead to unearthing a few gems.
good scouting can find some really good defenseman in the 2nd round and beyond....well unless you take Taylor Ellington or Alexandre Mallet....sigh.
You don't even need to draft a defenseman with a high first to restock the defense. Take one with offensive upside in the early-mid 2nd and acquire a bunch of 5th-7th round picks and use them on Defenseman. Sure volume will lead to unearthing a few gems.
No, but it doesn't happen often, and if a high potential d-man gets traded it's usually for a high value NHL player. And please don't use Dougie Hamilton as an argument, that was a mess of a trade.
The only realistic way I see us acquiring one is if we trade Edler (assuming he's willing to waive his NTC). We could also trade a guy like Horvat, but I really don't see that happening.
Didn't you?
You were the first person I saw projecting Provorov in the top 5/as the top defenseman in the WHL, followed by Craig Button a couple months later. Who's the magic player this year!?__________
Obviously projecting who we pick is a crapshoot in December, but I'd like if we picked someone who is trending up at the time, not down. Picking the "fallers" in Shinkaruk/Schroeder/Hodgson hasn't really worked recently, and I have zero faith in the Canucks to go against the conventional wisdom. Of course, Virtanen was trending up and McCann fell and they look like they should have been picked in the opposite order so who knows.
If the draft doesn't look as strong in the late first as Benning thinks it is, hopefully we move one of Hamhuis/Vrbata straight up for a prospect. Would go with the age gap concept they love...but that also brings up the huge risk of relying on Benning's horrendous pro scouting vs his up-in-the-air-but-seemingly-much-better amateur scouting.
We won't finish last, but this franchise could use a miracle with the lottery because every other option seems so bleak.
as oppose to a high potential forward traded for a low value NHL player?
high potential forwards/dmen would get good value in trades regardless.
The point is, I feel its much more "predictable" to identify the high potential forwards than the high potential dman at the draft.
Even you take out Hamilton, quite a few young dman have been traded in the last few months:
Griffin Reinhart
Nikita Zadorov
Simon Depres
hell the canucks themselves traded a 19 year old Forsling.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of theodore or montour gets traded at the deadline to enhance the Ducks cup chances.
Or in NYI, if Hamonic didnt' request a trade, Boychuk/Hamonic would have blocked a young dman like Ryan Pulock.
Zadorov was moved for a high value NHL player. Reinhart has lost a lot of value since being drafted (ask Isles fans how they felt about the trade). Despres...that was a bad trade, but Despres wasn't playing like he is now with Pittsburgh, he was struggling a lot at times. A lot of these d-men traded have/had red flags (including Hamilton), otherwise a high value NHLer is being moved. Trading for these guys with red flags is just as much of a crapshoot in my opinion (like Vey/Baertschi).
We haven't really seen a high value forward prospect for high value defensive prospect swap either.
Sure, I wouldn't be surprised to see Anaheim move one of their top d-men prospects, but it will be for a high value young-ish forward like JVR.
I don't think I ever said we can expect to be able to trade for these top dman prospects for cheap.
But I rather let other teams do the gamble. Again the point is forwards are more projectable at 18 than defenseman.
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
If we're in that 6-10 range (strong possibility) all of the best players available will be forwards. I think it'd just be ideal to move down if we really want a defenceman (though LW is also a need for us). I just hope we don't do something similar to what Minnesota did in 2012 by taking Matt Dumba over Filip Forsberg.
Yeah, I would only take a d-man if it's not a reach, otherwise I would try to trade back a few spots to get an extra pick. I wouldn't take a guy who would likely go around 14th overall with the 7th overall pick. But I still strongly believe we need to take a d-man. We keep on delaying taking d-men, and it (our franchise's defensive depth) continues to get worse.
It's also not written in stone that another d-man isn't going to be ranked in that 6-10 spot. Guys like Fabbro, Juolevi, and Sergachyov could easily rise in the next 6 months. You could easily argue that one (or more) of those guys belong in one of those spots right now.
Last edited:
So the obvious question is if we are sitting at say 6, just outisede the elite talent of this draft, do you trade back for a Fabro or a Bean?
Assuming there isn't a faller, yes, I would try to trade back a few spots to get another pick and take Fabbro/Juolevi/Sergachyov/Bean/etc. (unless one of those guys performs well enough in the next 6 months to be considered a good pick at 6th overall)
But I doubt we'll be in that position. I still think we'll finish in that 8-12 spot (pre-lottery), in an area where one of those d-men will probably be the BPA anyway.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,795
- 10,842
I think it's still important to keep perspective on things with the draft. This pick, wherever it ends up being...it's not going to be some kind of "cure all" for our rebuild. It's not going to be that one final piece to cap things off. It's just one of what needs to be many many pieces that we still don't have.
Even if we do manage to nab ourselves a stud defensive prospect for example...in all likelihood, it's going to be at least 3-5 years before we start to see real NHL dividends from the pick. There are always a few defencemen, mostly from the very top of the draft who manage to make the jump a bit sooner...but defence is a bit like goaltending, in that there's typically a lot of time investment before the picks start to really pay off. You need to draft defencemen well before you need defencemen (unfortuantely we're already in a big hole with that, which is where desperation mistakes tend to happen). Even good quality blue-chip defence prospects often take 3-5 years before they manage to gain a real NHL foothold.
All the more reason to try to get some more irons in the fire in terms of defence prospects developing sooner, rather than later. But it's not going to be something that immediately fixes our NHL team's defensive depth issues. There's a great likelihood that a defenceman picked now, isn't going to pay any NHL dividends until the Sedins are done and gone.
That's the eventuality that you're really drafting on "need" for. In which case, we need an awful lot of things still, not just defencemen. Can't keep ignoring defence and/or not getting much out of the position in the pipeline as has happened for a lot of years now, but at the same time...you really don't want to start passing up forwards where we still look to have a lot of "rebuilding" to do as well. Realistically...it looks as though we potentially still have a "need" of various degrees for the future at every single position.
Even if we do manage to nab ourselves a stud defensive prospect for example...in all likelihood, it's going to be at least 3-5 years before we start to see real NHL dividends from the pick. There are always a few defencemen, mostly from the very top of the draft who manage to make the jump a bit sooner...but defence is a bit like goaltending, in that there's typically a lot of time investment before the picks start to really pay off. You need to draft defencemen well before you need defencemen (unfortuantely we're already in a big hole with that, which is where desperation mistakes tend to happen). Even good quality blue-chip defence prospects often take 3-5 years before they manage to gain a real NHL foothold.
All the more reason to try to get some more irons in the fire in terms of defence prospects developing sooner, rather than later. But it's not going to be something that immediately fixes our NHL team's defensive depth issues. There's a great likelihood that a defenceman picked now, isn't going to pay any NHL dividends until the Sedins are done and gone.
That's the eventuality that you're really drafting on "need" for. In which case, we need an awful lot of things still, not just defencemen. Can't keep ignoring defence and/or not getting much out of the position in the pipeline as has happened for a lot of years now, but at the same time...you really don't want to start passing up forwards where we still look to have a lot of "rebuilding" to do as well. Realistically...it looks as though we potentially still have a "need" of various degrees for the future at every single position.
Was just talking about this in another thread, best timing for us in now. If we tank and get a #1D like you said, then next year tank again and get a #1 center, using the 3-5 year timeline that I agree with lets the twins teach and shelter them for a few years, before the team would be theirs.
We look to already have solid depth of prospects, we are just missing the stars. It may be a lot to ask for the timing to be right, but this could be an important year for us.
Pretty much why I'm pro tank. We have the cavalry of support players in J-mac, Virtanen, Horvat, Shinkaruk, Boeser, Hutton if we do things right and they all pan out like we expect. Throw in a couple superstar top 2 picks to that group? Thats what we need to do..
Tv9924
Registered User
He wants to take the NCAA route, but he didnt advance his schooling. If he plays in the OHL he cant go to the NCAA.
Same with his teammate Tyson Jost , who will be joining Boeser at UND next year.
- Status
