Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois (Round 2)

[Canucks LB]

Round 2

Who would you like the Canucks to Pick at #5.
PLD or Tkachuk

Absolutely countless requests for a re-poll.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2072907

Round 1 went to PLD by a total of 218 to 88.

Click to read more...

 

[Canucks LB]

Tkachuk's playoffs really makes me want to push towards Tkachuk, but this decision is extremely difficult.

I got this from the prospect Boards.

Redline report says:

Size/strength: tkachuk a+ and dubois a-

Skating: tkachuk b and dubois b-

Shot/scoring ability: tkachuk b+ and dubois a

Puck handling: a for both

Hockey sense: tkachuk a- and dubois a+

Competitiveness: tkachuk a and dubois a-

Physical play: tkachuk a and dubois b

Composure/poise: tkachuk b and dubois a-

Defence: tkachuk c+ and dubois b+

With regards to skating:

Dubois:

red line says that dubois doesn't catch your eye with a blazing stride but he is above average in a straight line and starts and stops effectively for a teenager who hasn't filled out his bottom half. It also says that slightly subpar leg strength contributed to his being cut by team Canada. Dubois also acknowledges his skating issues when he said, "If I could get an extra two or three steps and more explosiveness, I could be more dangerous."

Tkachuk:

He said, "I think my skating has come a long way since the beginning of the year and it still needs some work."

Hope that helps.

 

[GetFocht]

we ain't getting Tkachuk, his playoff production is extremely rare.

 

[CanaFan]

we ain't getting Tkachuk, his playoff production is extremely rare.

Is there anyone left who would still take a D at 5 over whichever of Tkachuk or Dubois is there? Even trading back and picking up a marginal piece like a high third or even a second at this point would **** me off.

We have depth. We lack first liners. Please Benning don't muck this up by sacrificing the latter for the former.

 

[me2]

Is there anyone left who would still take a D at 5 over whichever of Tkachuk or Dubois is there? Even trading back and picking up a marginal piece like a high third or even a second at this point would **** me off.

We have depth. We lack first liners. Please Benning don't muck this up by sacrificing the latter for the former.

I can't see him messing this up. Tkachuk's playoffs should have put it behind all doubt. Then again I didn't think it was possible to fail at trading Hamhuis.

 

[clunk]

I think we can all agree... Whether it's Tkachuk or Dubois we're getting a fantastic player with very real first line potential.

 

[Scholarships]

I still like Dubois, I really like his game. Tkachuk's dominant playoffs is making the choice much harder though.

Happy we will most likely grab one of these two.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Tkachuk has absolutely dominated in the playoffs. That should get him to #4.

Leaving us Dubois. An excellent choice at #5.

 

[Tv9924]

Tkachuk's playoffs really makes me want to push towards Tkachuk, but this decision is extremely difficult.

I got this from the prospect Boards.

I find some of this odd. How does Tkachuk have a size/strength advantage over the bigger, arguably more physical Dubois? And I haven't watched the two as much as others here but from what I've seen Dubois looks to be faster than Tkachuk. Does anyone else here think Tkachuk has the advantage of speed over Dubois?

 

[JA]

I was unsure about Tkachuk, but his success in the postseason puts me at ease that we will pick an excellent player at #5 regardless of which is available.

That said, I still have not seen him play a full match. Dubois is the player I prefer based on the diverse skill set, ability to drive his line, and versatility that he brings, but Tkachuk seems like a better consolation prize than I thought he would be.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's tough. Dubois fits this team better and I prefer the style he plays alot more + the ability to play center is an important bonus.

However, Tkachuk's making such a good case for himself that it's one of those things where if you pick Dubois ahead of him, you REALLY might end up kicking yourself for making an outright stupid decision (picking need/style/versatility over BPA).

His floor/likelihood of not busting is alot higher than Dubois' IMO. But if everything works out as expected, Dubois is the player that we NEED, much more than a Tkachuk is.

 

[JA]

It's tough. Dubois fits this team better and I prefer the style he plays alot more + the ability to play center is an important bonus.

However, Tkachuk's making such a good case for himself that it's one of those things where if you pick Dubois ahead of him, you REALLY might end up kicking yourself for making an outright stupid decision.

We should just trade for the fourth overall pick and take both . . . or upgrade our position to 2nd overall. I've said numerous times over the past few days that the 33rd + Tanev, or something of that sort, could be used to acquire the 4th overall pick from Edmonton.

Based on the following poll, it seems that 4th + 5th overall would be enough to pry the 2nd overall pick from the Jets. The poll currently reads 58-16 in favor of Tkachuk + Dubois over Laine.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2075017

 

[Shareefruck]

We should just trade for the fourth overall pick and take both . . . or upgrade our position to 2nd overall. I've said numerous times over the past few days that the 33rd + Tanev, or something of that sort, could be used to acquire the 4th overall pick from Edmonton.

Based on the following poll, it seems that 4th + 5th overall would be enough to pry the 2nd overall pick from the Jets. The poll currently reads 58-16 in favor of Tkachuk + Dubois over Laine.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2075017

I wouldn't do that.

I feel that our need for D is overstated by fans, but not to a degree that I think we can afford to trade Tanev for another forward prospect equivalent to the one we're already getting. I'd only do it if it were for a sure-fire pure centerman with better upside than Horvat.

If Dubois can't be a center, we would end up with something like

Tkachuk - XX - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Dubois
McCann - Gaunce - Virtanen
XX - XX - XX

Hutton - XX
XX - Tryamkin
XX - XX

Demko
Markstrom

Down the road. I don't think that's smart asset management moving forward, personally. Excessively stacking wing depth while still failing to address the #1 C while WEAKENING our already weak D core by removing the best player. And Tkachuk still wouldn't have the dominant offensive forwards to play with that I think make him most effective. I don't really see him lighting it up playing with Horvat, personally.

The idea of Tkachuk playing with Boeser and Horvat playing with Dubois does sound like a match made in heaven, though.

 

[JA]

I wouldn't do that.

I feel that our need for D is overstated by fans, but not to a degree that I think we can afford to trade Tanev for another forward prospect equivalent to the one we're already getting. I'd only do it if it were for a sure-fire pure centerman with better upside than Horvat.

If Dubois can't be a center, we would end up with something like

Tkachuk - XX - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Dubois
McCann - Gaunce - XX
XX - XX - XX

Hutton - XX
XX - Tryamkin
XX - XX

Demko
Markstrom

Down the road. I don't think that's smart asset management moving forward, personally. Excessively stacking wing depth while still failing to address the #1 C while WEAKENING our already weak D core by removing the best player. And Tkachuk still wouldn't have the dominant offensive forwards to play with that I think make him most effective. I don't really see him lighting it up playing with Horvat, personally.

Where has Virtanen gone on your depth chart? We also have assets that can be moved to address our other needs; defensemen like Jordan Subban and Troy Stecher, meanwhile, are still players we must assess.

By the time we are at the point when Alex Edler is no longer on our payroll, three more NHL drafts will have passed. We are not done assembling young talent, and we have an opportunity here to reinvigorate this lineup with young, high-end talent. This is the first time since 1999 that we have drafted in the top five of the draft board, and to add two pieces of that caliber to our lineup would be huge.

 

[Shareefruck]

Where have Baertschi and Virtanen gone on your depth chart? We also have assets that can be moved to address our other needs; defensemen like Jordan Subban and Troy Stecher, meanwhile, are still players we must assess.

By the time we are at the point where Alex Edler is no longer on our payroll, three more NHL drafts will have passed.

I forgot about Virtanen, but that only enforces my point. Trading Tanev + the 33rd (presumably another solid D prospect) just so that we can get both Dubois and Tkachuk sounds very excessive to me considering that they're both predominantly wingers (we would have a top 9 of wingers where everyone is in a very projectable spot even without this trade).

It's trading from a position of weakness to address a position of (sort of) strength.

Even if we'll have time to address the hole that this digs, why would you go out of your way to make your youth distribution even more unbalanced that it already is? Even with three more drafts, having an unbalanced youth pool means that you can't reasonably pick BPA to fill that group out properly-- Are they going to focus purely on centerman and D over those three years? Would be a dumb plan, IMO

I can't think of a compelling reason to do it. If Dubois was a surefire pure centerman, maybe.

Subban and Stecher are unreliable long-shots that can't be counted on.

 

[Virtanen2Horvat]

That is our top 6 right there. Hopefully Baertschi can keep it going and Virtanen gets better, I think it will take him time and a year of Utica will be good for him. But anyways I really liked that line.

Tkachuk would be great with Boeser now we would just need a 1C if we get him. Next year we need to get a Dman in the 1st and 2nd round. This year we should get one in the 2nd and 3rd.

Tkachuk - ??? - Boeser
Virtanen - Horvat - Baertschi

 

[JA]

I forgot about Virtanen, but that only enforces my point. Trading Tanev + the 33rd (presumably another solid D prospect) just so that we can get both Dubois and Tkachuk sounds very excessive to me considering that they're both predominantly wingers (and technically, without the trade, we would likely have two guys who could end up as 1st line wingers, two guys who could end up as 2nd line wingers, and more guys who could be 3rd line wingers-- an already solid position to be in).

It's trading from a position of weakness to address a position of (sort of) strength.

Even if we'll have time to address the hole that this digs, why would you go out of your way to make your youth distribution even more unbalanced that it already is?

I can't think of a compelling reason to do it. If Dubois was a surefire pure centerman, maybe.

There is no guarantee that an adequate defense prospect will be available with the 33rd overall pick, whereas we have an opportunity to convert that draft pick into a high-end, reliable forward prospect. There are no defense prospects in that top tier this year, so we would be doing ourselves a favor to select the two best players available and increasing the overall talent level of the roster.

We can select a defenseman in the first round of each of the following three drafts -- that would be more than sufficient to replace the 33rd and Tanev. The talent pool for defense is greater next year than this year, and the loss of Tanev would probably place us a few spots higher than if we were to keep him around.

 

[Shareefruck]

There is no guarantee that an adequate defense prospect will be available with the 33rd overall pick, whereas we have an opportunity to convert that draft pick into a high-end, reliable forward prospect. There are no defense prospects in that top tier this year, so we would be doing ourselves a favor to select the two best players available.

We can select a defenseman in the first round of each of the following three drafts -- that would be more than sufficient to replace the 33rd and Tanev.

No guarantee doesn't mean that it isn't a probable position for one. Plus we're talking about Trading Tanev in addition to that for one guy. Dubois/Tkachuk may not even end up being as effective as Tanev is, and by all accounts Tanev is still young enough that he'll probably be an important piece of the next core.

It's not super likely that you'll be able to find a defenseman that ends up as good as Tanev over the next three drafts even if you use every 1st rounder on D (which seems excessive and poor asset management to me as well). D are very difficult to draft and predict and we don't even know that we'll pick high enough over the next three drafts to have a good shot at it.

EVEN if you replace Tanev, you're back to square one-- The future defense looks weak even with Tanev. And you've used up all your #1 draft picks with no #1 C to show for it.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Shareefruck]

It just seems so much more comfortable and smart to pick the single high end winger now, with the off chance that Dubois turns into a #1 center. If you do that, your wing depth is very very passable and adequate, or there's the off chance that your center depth is very very passable and adequate, your goaltending is complete, and while your D is still a weakness, it still has three solid guys to build around in Tanev, Hutton, and Tryamkin.

At this point, you can comfortably pick BPA for the next three drafts, be in a relatively balanced and versatile position at every pick and have a solid shot at organically filling out all positions of your depth. Hopefully get that #1 center if Dubois isn't it, LIKELY be able to fill out that D core, and strengthen any remaining minor weaknesses that you might have at wing.

It just makes so much more sense and seems like a much more viable plan to me.

 

[iFan]

I think I'll be more surprised to see Tkachuk available at 5th than Dubios.

 

[JA]

No guarantee doesn't mean that it isn't a probable position for one. Plus we're talking about Trading Tanev in addition to that for one guy. Dubois/Tkachuk may not even end up being as effective as Tanev is, and by all accounts Tanev is still young enough that he'll probably be an important piece of the next core.

There's no guarantee that you'll be able to find a defenseman that ends up as good as Tanev over the next three drafts even if you use every 1st rounder on D (which seems excessive and poor asset management to me as well). D are very difficult to draft and predict.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The player taken 4th overall has far more value than the player taken 33rd overall and has, at this point, a greater chance of becoming a high-end player in the NHL. I see no problem with moving up from 33rd to 4th, and if there is an overabundance of forwards, we can subsequently move that player for a defenseman of equivalent value from another team.

Columbus traded Ryan Johansen, the fourth overall pick in 2010, for Seth Jones, the fourth overall pick in 2013. They swapped one high-end player for another. That's a better strategy than picking 33rd and hoping that the defenseman drafted at that position becomes equivalent in value to the 4th overall selection. We significantly increase our odds of having a high-end player and can swap him for a player of equivalent value, whereas the 33rd pick is a far greater risk to become just an average player or even nothing at all.

Chris Tanev is not an elite defenseman, and I very much believe that to be a contender one needs to have elite defensemen; we will have the opportunity to pick the best players available. The loss of Chris Tanev will pay dividends for this team's future, improving our position in the next few drafts. The players we choose may be defensemen, or they may be forwards. At any rate, we will be able to move our 2016 4th overall selection if we are satisfied with the players we select in the subsequent drafts, or the best players available might be defensemen and we will be able to keep our high-end forward from 2016 while selecting high-end defensemen in the Top 15. Tanev will be 29 years old by the time Alex Edler is no longer a Canuck, and will be in his 30s by the time the time is highly competitive. He is a part of the current core group, but he will likely not be a member of a future contending group, or he will be less effective by that point.

Lots can change in three seasons. This team is in a rebuilding phase, and rebuilding requires present sacrifices and a plan for the future. Rarely do we have opportunities to acquire a top five talent in the draft.

If Dubois and Tkachuk turn into young, excellent wingers, we can trade one for a young, excellent defenseman. In that case, Tanev and the 33rd pick will have been used to make an upgrade on defense as well as to improve our draft position in the next few drafts. If Dubois becomes a great centerman, we'll have fulfilled our needs at center and wing, and we will also draft higher than if we were to simply keep Tanev and the 33rd pick.

 

[The Drop]

We should just trade for the fourth overall pick and take both . . . or upgrade our position to 2nd overall. I've said numerous times over the past few days that the 33rd + Tanev, or something of that sort, could be used to acquire the 4th overall pick from Edmonton.

Based on the following poll, it seems that 4th + 5th overall would be enough to pry the 2nd overall pick from the Jets. The poll currently reads 58-16 in favor of Tkachuk + Dubois over Laine.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2075017

Why would anyone trade the 2 picks for Laine?
Tkachuk Dubois Boeser
McCann Horvat Virtanen

Seems much more promising than

Laine Horvat Boeser
Baertschi McCann Virtanen

 

[Shareefruck]

The player taken 4th overall has far more value than the player taken 33rd overall and has, at this point, a greater chance of finding success in the NHL. I see no problem with moving up from 33rd to 4th, and if there is an overabundance of forwards, we can subsequently move that player for a defenseman of equivalent value from another team.

Columbus traded Ryan Johansen, fourth overall pick in 2010, for Seth Jones, fourth overall pick in 2013. They swapped one high-end player for another. That's a better strategy than picking 33rd and hoping that the defenseman drafted at that position becomes equivalent in value to the 4th overall selection.

Chris Tanev is not an elite defenseman, and I very much believe that to be a contender one needs to have elite defensemen; we will have the opportunity to seek those players in the next three draft classes. The loss of Chris Tanev will pay dividends for this team's future, improving our position in the next few drafts. Tanev will be 29 years old by the time Alex Edler is no longer a Canuck, and will be in his 30s by the time the time is highly competitive. He is a part of the current core group, but he will likely not be a member of a future contending group, or he will be less effective by that point.

Lots can change in three seasons. This team is in a rebuilding phase, and rebuilding requires present sacrifices and a plan for the future. Rarely do we have opportunities to acquire a top five talent in the draft.

If Dubois and Tkachuk turn into young, excellent wingers, we can trade one for a young, excellent defenseman. In that case, Tanev and the 33rd pick will have been used to make an upgrade on defense. If Dubois becomes a great centerman, we'll have fulfilled our needs at center and wing.

The way I see it, it's extremely difficult to acquire a #1 center and it's even more difficult to acquire a #1 defenseman. You won't be able to trade a winger to get one of similar value, and even with three drafts to concentrate on it, it's still a bit of a shot in the dark (we haven't managed to get either in the previous three drafts either, settling for a winger each time). If BPAs fall onto your lap that force you to have a lop-sided youth pool, then you have no choice but to trade back and forth to make it work, but I just don't see reason to go out of your way to put yourself in that position. It's not an easy thing to do even if you have strength at one position (for my money, the least valuable position).

I don't really understand how Edler leaving is relevant to when to start counting.

I also think you might have higher hopes for Tkachuk/Dubois than I do. While we're all crossing our fingers that they'll be elite forwards, I think they probably aren't. They look like they might be solid 1st liners if things work out, just as Tanev is a solid 1st pairing defenseman. He's no stud #1 defenseman, but Tkachuk/Dubois aren't Matthews/Laine either.

Who knows how long it will take for this team to become competitive again, but I think Tanev is at an age where there will likely be some overlap. I'm also not comfortable rebuilding to a degree that your D is a COMPLETE ****-show-- that only hurts development, IMO.

If you can trade Tanev in a package to get a potential future #1C or #1D, you do it in a heartbeat. For a winger, given our already winger-heavy distribution of youth, I'm not so sure.

 

[The Drop]

The way I see it, it's extremely difficult to acquire a #1 center and it's even more difficult to acquire a #1 defenseman. You won't be able to trade a winger to get one of similar value, and even with three drafts to concentrate on it, it's still a bit of a shot in the dark (we haven't managed to get either in the previous three drafts either, settling for a winger each time). If BPAs fall onto your lap that force you to have a lop-sided youth pool, then you have no choice but to trade back and forth to make it work, but I just don't see reason to go out of your way to put yourself in that position. It's not an easy thing to do even if you have strength at one position (for my money, the least valuable position).

I don't really understand how Edler leaving is relevant to when to start counting.

I also think you might have higher hopes for Tkachuk/Dubois than I do. While we're all crossing our fingers that they'll be elite forwards, I think they probably aren't. They look like they might be solid 1st liners if things work out, just as Tanev is a solid 1st pairing defenseman. He's no stud #1 defenseman, but Tkachuk/Dubois aren't Matthews/Laine either.

Who knows how long it will take for this team to become competitive again, but I think Tanev is at an age where there will likely be some overlap. I'm also not comfortable rebuilding to a degree that your D is a COMPLETE ****-show-- that only hurts development, IMO.

We'd be lucky if either of those forwards had as big an impact as Tanev does currently to our team.

 

[JA]

We'd be lucky if either of those forwards had as big an impact as Tanev does currently to our team.

We aren't currently trying to compete for a Stanley Cup.


Having Tanev right now is meaningless. If we could trade Edler instead, that would be my preference, as Edler is three years older and has more deficiencies in his game than Tanev. We should be thinking of the future. Holding on to both Tanev and Edler when they will be several years older by the time we are ready to do any damage in the playoffs is a waste. Current talent must be converted into future talent, as there is no success to achieve with our current group. Our best players, at their peak right now, offer nothing to us. If they are in decline by the time we are ready to compete, then we'll have wasted their value.