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

[Shareefruck]

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.

If this is your entire basis (where we should be getting whatever we can for current players), I have an easier time going with it. But I think that if you're going to trade Tanev and the value that comes with him, it should probably be for something that's more of a need. Winger prospects are nice, but aren't a huge need in comparison to our other weaknesses, IMO.

 

[Icebreakers]

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.

Its not realistic for us to just "blow it up". Whether if its the right move or not.

 

[Icebreakers]

Pick at 5 is a no brainer at this point. Just take whoever is available at 5.

 

[Shareefruck]

I wonder if Edmonton would entertain trading one of their centers for a Tanev+ package.

Tkachuk/Dubois - Draisaitl/RNH - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen
McCann - Gaunce - XX
Etem - XX - Zalewski

Hutton - XX
XX - Tryamkin
XX - XX

Demko
Markstrom

would be very enticing.

 

[Icebreakers]

I wonder if Edmonton would entertain trading one of their centers for a Tanev+ package.

Dubois/Tkachuk - Nugent-Hopkins/Draisaitl - Boeser
Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen

would be very enticing.

What do we do on D then?

 

[Shareefruck]

What do we do on D then?

It would be worth having that hole on D to know that your center core is complete, your winger core is pretty much complete, and your goalie core is complete. As JetsAlternate mentioned, there's time to fill a single weakness through drafting, and Tanev only has a few years of overlap anyways. Acquire alot of picks and draft alot of defenseman.

The lack of a 1C and being stuck in that position was the dealbreaker for me.

With every other position solidified, it could be feasible to make do by, at a minimum, only adding two solid top four D-men to support Hutton/Tryamkin over that three years. If you have a 1st line that's a legit 1st line, a 2nd line that's a legit/above average second line, a potential star goaltender, two-thirds of a solid 3rd line, and an existing top 4 pairing, I think that can work.

If Dubois was a surefire centerman, I would agree with JetsAlternate.

 

[The Stig]

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.

This is so wrong, it makes my head hurt. Chris Tanev is EXACTLY what we need on D right now. He's 26, a solid defensive D man and probably our best D man. Thats a guy you want the young talent to come up and learn from. If you're rebuilding you trade the guys over 30. Not the ones in their mid 20's. You try to GET the guys in their early to mid 20's. You cant just have 18-22 year olds. You need someone there to ride shotgun with them so they can learn. His value is more important as a coach to players like Hutton and Trym than it ever will be on the market.

 

[The Drop]

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.

I would have agreed with you had you not proposed the picks 4 and 5 to move up for the #2 pick

 

[Fat Tony]

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

Nor are the teams picking ahead of the Canucks.

 

[ayoshi]

Chris Tanev is only 26 folks. If everything pans out and the Canucks are aiming to make the playoffs in 3 or 4 years time, an NHL defence would be necessary for that. Tanev would still be in his prime.

Keep Tanev unless you're getting your sox blown off (i.e. #5 + Tanev for #2)

 

[lawrence]

There is a reason why 9 in 10 scouts bob Mack surveyed had him ahead of Dubois. Not to mention a huge majority of all mock drafts we see, or just regular rankings have tkatchuk higher.

Not to mention jum benning earlier this year said tkatchuk is one of the best down low players in this draft.

He is strong in the puck, excellent puck possession player, gritty player that will rough it up. Unbelievable hockey sense, and the willingness to not quit. Not afraid to go to the front of the net, 9 in 10 scouts surveyed had him at 4.

The Edmonton Oilers will be making a mistake not drafting hi.

My vote originally went to Dubois, but now I am taking the advise of the vast majority who's ranking have him the 4th best player.

That said I will also be very happy with Dubois at 5. The gap between these 2 are very narrow. Either way we are getting one hell of a player.

 

[Icebreakers]

Damnnnn Tkachuk is changing a lot of people's minds here. When the first poll was up im pretty sure Dubois had 80%+ of the votes. After the mem cup Tkachuk could have 60%+ of the votes.

 

[The Stig]

There is a reason why 9 in 10 scouts bob Mack surveyed had him ahead of Dubois. Not to mention a huge majority of all mock drafts we see, or just regular rankings have tkatchuk higher.

Not to mention jum benning earlier this year said tkatchuk is one of the best down low players in this draft.

He is strong in the puck, excellent puck possession player, gritty player that will rough it up. Unbelievable hockey sense, and the willingness to not quit. Not afraid to go to the front of the net, 9 in 10 scouts surveyed had him at 4.

The Edmonton Oilers will be making a mistake not drafting hi.

My vote originally went to Dubois, but now I am taking the advise of the vast majority who's ranking have him the 4th best player.

That said I will also be very happy with Dubois at 5. The gap between these 2 are very narrow. Either way we are getting one hell of a player.

Your last sentence says it all really. Both kids have the potential to be great

 

[F A N]

Variability. CSS's list will closely align with every other team and scouting service's list at the top and begin to diverge heavily as it progresses into the later rounds. Early on the draft has an element of science and reliability to it.

Disagree. Central Scouting's list are used as a guide. There's no doubt about it. But it's a fact that team's lists often differ greatly from that of Central Scouting's.. The fact that CSS does not rank NA and European skaters together lowers its reliability. Draft guides often take the "independent scouting" route (they will tell you that their rankings is different from how they think the draft will go) or "pool the scouts" route (meaning they are better at predicting how the draft will go and that's it).

Take the 2008 draft. Petrov was the #2 Euro skater according to Central Scouting. Only RLR had him in the top 10. Most had him out of the first round, including McKenzie who's list is IMO the most accurate predictor of how the first round would go.

... With a high pick, your GM or AGM can do the scouting for you. These kids at the top of the draft are so polished and well known that you can just tell that they are future NHLers.

What if the GM's background is in advanced stats and the AGM doesn't have much of a scouting background either?

Not really. He just ran back to Russia. Probably could still have played in the NHL but we'll never know because he didn't stick it out.

No doubt the talent is there, but it looks like he didn't even have a good KHL career.

What about Mark Jankowski? Or Thomas Hickey? Or any of the other guys that teams drafted higher than their CSS ranking who busted or at least proved not worthy of the reach? Does that not "prove" the opposite of your examples? That teams scouts are just as capable of being wrong as CSS? We can both cherry pick examples but all it does is show that no one is right all the time.

No. The point I disagreed with is that you said Dubois would be a good pick even if he busts because he's the #1 NA skater according to CS and is a consensus top 10 or 5 pick. I think fundamentally, what we disagree with is the "consensus" of scouting. You clearly think that Central Scouting rankings align with NHL team's rankings, especially when it comes to the top picks. I disagree with that. And if you ever read draft guides you will see that it's not that simple. There are reasons for teams or draft guides to rank a player ahead of another. If you go by rankings and don't evaluate the reasons you are actually not making an informed analysis and decision.

You can just look at Dubois, his numbers, and talk to other people who've watched him to know he is a worthwhile pick at 5. There's no voodoo or guesswork here, he is clearly an NHL talent. Yes he may bust, but that can happen with extensive scouting just as well as with little.

I'm not saying Dubois wouldn't be a good pick. What I'm saying is that it's important to make the right pick. That's what it's all about. That's why an NHL team's list is the culmination of a year's work or more. The objective of those scout meetings just before the draft is to rank players in the correct order. The objective isn't to just go by consensus because ah well Central Scouting ranks him as the #1 NA forward and everyone thinks he's an NHL talent. If a guy doesn't have the numbers, has a higher risk of bust, is ranked lower by Central Scouting, but the team's scouts believe that he has the higher upside and believe he can actually be the BPA do you draft him?

I want Benning and the scouting staff to rely on their own homework. I want them to make their own decision as to who the BPA is.

 

[Yggdrasil]

if we had #3rd overall pick, no brainer who we get and no discussion of who should we be picking.

damn random drafting, damn u oilers for changing the game of draft.

 

[brokenhole]

Edmonton holds the cards who Vancouver picks, i think it will be Tkachuk. The Coil could package Dubois for a d-man like Subban, it just fit's on so many levels. The Canucks would end up paying through the nose to move up to 4th. To me there is not much separation between PLD and Tkachuk to do anything drastic.

 

[iFan]

It would be worth having that hole on D to know that your center core is complete, your winger core is pretty much complete, and your goalie core is complete. As JetsAlternate mentioned, there's time to fill a single weakness through drafting, and Tanev only has a few years of overlap anyways. Acquire alot of picks and draft alot of defenseman.

The lack of a 1C and being stuck in that position was the dealbreaker for me.

With every other position solidified, it could be feasible to make do by, at a minimum, only adding two solid top four D-men to support Hutton/Tryamkin over that three years. If you have a 1st line that's a legit 1st line, a 2nd line that's a legit/above average second line, a potential star goaltender, two-thirds of a solid 3rd line, and an existing top 4 pairing, I think that can work.

If Dubois was a surefire centerman, I would agree with JetsAlternate.

I really don't agree... Sedins are here for a good bit, Horvat can fill a 2nd line role with potential to be a #1c, we don't need to make a move like this, if we draft Dubios we got that centre man in the system, if if draft Tkachuk we still have McCann and hopefully him and Horvat can be the guys. Vancouver future D core is looking pretty bad at the moment, we need help there. We need a home run with a D prospect in the later rounds.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Edmonton holds the cards who Vancouver picks, i think it will be Tkachuk. The Coil could package Dubois for a d-man like Subban, it just fit's on so many levels. The Canucks would end up paying through the nose to move up to 4th. To me there is not much separation between PLD and Tkachuk to do anything drastic.

I agree, I could definitely see them trading that pick to a team interested in Dubois. Lots more suitors there than for Tkachuk.

But after what Tkachuk has done in the playoffs...making me question my choice. Detractors say he needs a center to drive the play for him...Horvat could be that center.

Tkachuk-Horvat-Boeser

That is a hell of a future top line.

 

[CanaFan]

Disagree. Central Scouting's list are used as a guide. There's no doubt about it. But it's a fact that team's lists often differ greatly from that of Central Scouting's.. The fact that CSS does not rank NA and European skaters together lowers its reliability. Draft guides often take the "independent scouting" route (they will tell you that their rankings is different from how they think the draft will go) or "pool the scouts" route (meaning they are better at predicting how the draft will go and that's it).

Take the 2008 draft. Petrov was the #2 Euro skater according to Central Scouting. Only RLR had him in the top 10. Most had him out of the first round, including McKenzie who's list is IMO the most accurate predictor of how the first round would go.


What if the GM's background is in advanced stats and the AGM doesn't have much of a scouting background either?



No doubt the talent is there, but it looks like he didn't even have a good KHL career.



No. The point I disagreed with is that you said Dubois would be a good pick even if he busts because he's the #1 NA skater according to CS and is a consensus top 10 or 5 pick. I think fundamentally, what we disagree with is the "consensus" of scouting. You clearly think that Central Scouting rankings align with NHL team's rankings, especially when it comes to the top picks. I disagree with that. And if you ever read draft guides you will see that it's not that simple. There are reasons for teams or draft guides to rank a player ahead of another. If you go by rankings and don't evaluate the reasons you are actually not making an informed analysis and decision.



I'm not saying Dubois wouldn't be a good pick. What I'm saying is that it's important to make the right pick. That's what it's all about. That's why an NHL team's list is the culmination of a year's work or more. The objective of those scout meetings just before the draft is to rank players in the correct order. The objective isn't to just go by consensus because ah well Central Scouting ranks him as the #1 NA forward and everyone thinks he's an NHL talent. If a guy doesn't have the numbers, has a higher risk of bust, is ranked lower by Central Scouting, but the team's scouts believe that he has the higher upside and believe he can actually be the BPA do you draft him?

I want Benning and the scouting staff to rely on their own homework. I want them to make their own decision as to who the BPA is.

But what was the original point that started this discussion? Wasn't it that the Canucks Q scouting sucks so we shouldn't take Dubois? And I said how much scouting do you really need to select the top NA rated skater in the draft?

I stand by that point. Benning IS a scout so if he has seen Dubois that is more important than what our Q scout thinks. Plus, for further validation, you are selecting a player that CSS has as their top player. I'm not saying you definitely take him for that reason alone, but you sure as **** don't NOT take him because you think our Q scout has a shaky track record.

The rest of your post above I don't really disagree with but the original context of my comment got spun out into this far reaching assessment of scouting and drafting in general, which was not my point.

Dubois should be at or near the top of our draft list regardless of what anyone thinks of our Q scouts. In the later rounds I would be more open to the idea of skipping weak scouting areas but not at 5.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Trading Tanev would be a mistake. Trade away all your quality and you are bringing up young players in a losing environment. Just look to Edmonton to see what the problem with that is. Lets not get caught up with the shiny new toy syndrome.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

I agree, I could definitely see them trading that pick to a team interested in Dubois. Lots more suitors there than for Tkachuk.

But after what Tkachuk has done in the playoffs...making me question my choice. Detractors say he needs a center to drive the play for him...Horvat could be that center.

Tkachuk-Horvat-Boeser

That is a hell of a future top line.

8/10 scouts Friedman talked too said differently. That he can create his own offence just as well as play off a world class centre. He's really the perfect complimentary winger to an elite centre, he plays a strong game with lots of down low domination, kid is smart and has skill/finesse in his arsenal.
I've been a big pusher for Matty T for months now. This kid is gonna be a stud. Perfect LW compliment to Horvat or McCann. Tkachuk Horvat Virtanen big fast and strong line, or The Triple B line, BaeBoBoes with Tkachuk McCann Virtanen as a 1/A/B line.

 

[CanaFan]

Trading Tanev would be a mistake. Trade away all your quality and you are bringing up young players in a losing environment. Just look to Edmonton to see what the problem with that is. Lets not get caught up with the shiny new toy syndrome.

While I likely wouldn't trade Tanev away either it also wouldn't lead to an Edmonton situation. Teams have traded good players away for prospects for decades and not all of them have been the 2010-2016 Edmonton Oilers.

Stop using one team as a boogeyman for every single move that a team might make to rebuild. It's lazy and fundamentally incorrect.

 

[settinguptheplay]

While I likely wouldn't trade Tanev away either it also wouldn't lead to an Edmonton situation. Teams have traded good players away for prospects for decades and not all of them have been the 2010-2016 Edmonton Oilers.

Stop using one team as a boogeyman for every single move that a team might make to rebuild. It's lazy and fundamentally incorrect.

Cannot think of many teams that have traded away young top pairing dmen like Tanev for futures. We do not have the team depth on the blue line to make a trade like that. Could set this franchise back another 4~5 years by the time we draft and develop another top pairing guy. Not to mention that trading away our top shutdown guy would likely lead to a few more GA's. Hardly something a low scoring team can afford to do.

Tanev is young enough that he can still be in his prime when this team is ready to compete again. Makes no sense to trade him away for a lottery ticket. Now if you want to talk Edler... You would have my support.

And no boogeymen my friend. There are plenty of players I would trade on the Canucks for futures. Tanev is one of the few I would not though.

 

[CanaFan]

Cannot think of many teams that have traded away young top pairing dmen like Tanev for futures. We do not have the team depth on the blue line to make a trade like that. Could set this franchise back another 4~5 years by the time we draft and develop another top pairing guy. Not to mention that trading away our top shutdown guy would likely lead to a few more GA's. Hardly something a low scoring team can afford to do.

Tanev is young enough that he can still be in his prime when this team is ready to compete again. Makes no sense to trade him away for a lottery ticket. Now if you want to talk Edler... You would have my support.

And no boogeymen my friend. There are plenty of players I would trade on the Canucks for futures. Tanev is one of the few I would not though.

That's fine. As I mentioned I wouldn't trade him either. Just don't think every move needs to be the one that "makes us the next Oilers" as gets thrown around here so often.

Lose 10 games in a row. "We need a win or we'll turn into the Oilers."

Trade vets on expiring contracts at the deadline. "That's how you become the next Oilers".

I would just like for once to hear people argue the merits of their points without tossing in an Oilers reference at the end. It would make their points so much more credible.

That was my only complaint really.

 

[CanaFan]

Haha my thoughts exactly...I don't know how people have changed their minds after one week.

Tkachuk tearing up the OHL playoffs probably has a lot to do with it.