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

[TruGr1t]

Think it's Tkachuk or a trade down for us. Highly doubt PLD will be there at this point; he's simply the highest end "centre" left in the draft after Matthews. Enough teams need C's that he'll get taken...Oilers or whoever trades up. We really need to tank next year to score our Henrik replacement.

 

[clay]

"To trade 2nd round picks... it just kills me."

- Jim Benning

That interview convinced me that ownership is meddling (as almost all of us suspect). I really do think Benning wants to keep picks and work his magic in the draft but isn't being given the opportunity to do it.

The tone of the interview also implies we'll be taking a forward at 5. He sounds very confident the 2 forwards will be top line players and only confident the the d-man in the top 6 will be a top 4 guy. He could definitely be talking d-man to put up a smokescreen to either:

-entice Edmonton into taking a one
-reassure his old pal chia that he is making the right decision if he has alreadytold benning that they are taking one

 

[lawrence]

Me too. If we leave either Dubois or Tkachuk for Calgary it will be the final straw.

I have defended Benning very much in the Gudbranson trade but if that does happen there will be a riot in Downtown Vancouver and I will be in it. no way Calgary is getting Dooby or a Tkahcuk.

 

[lawrence]

couple interesting right ups, for those who are undecided between the 2.

I think the 5th pick is the easiest pick in the draft. Bar none, Benning cannot obviously screw this one up.

www.redlinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tkachuk-Spotlight-March-2016.pdf

www.redlinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dubois-Spotlight-January-2016.pdf


Tkachuk Report Card
Size/Strength A+
Skating B
Shot/Scoring ability B+
Puckhandling A
Hockey Sense A
Competitiveness A
Physical play A
Composure/Poise B
Defence C+

Scouting Report: The prototype of a modern power winger. Has great size and strength,
and wins every puck battle around walls and corners. Makes power moves to the net. Has outstanding
vision and playmaking skills. Has a real mean streak if you get him riled up, but would prefer to
beat you with perfectly timed and placed passes or a wicked snap shot. Dominant force can take over
games. Will hit, fight, score, and is one of the most competitive ******** you’ll ever find.

Dubois Report Card
Size/Strength A
Skating B
Shot/ Scoring ability A
Puckhandling A
Hockey Sense A+
Competitiveness A
physical play B
Composure/Poise A
Defence B+

Scouting Report: His move to centre this season has taken his game to new heights. He’s got
the size, hands, hockey sense, and creativity to become a true #1 centre in the NHL. Add in his dedication
to getting better, mental make-up, and willingness to compete hard on every shift in all three zones,
and he’s a fairly wart-proof prospect. The only minor pitfall is that he lacks first step explosion and a
separation gear at the top end in his stride right now - but he is working on it diligently.

 

[VanJack]

Think it's Tkachuk or a trade down for us. Highly doubt PLD will be there at this point; he's simply the highest end "centre" left in the draft after Matthews. Enough teams need C's that he'll get taken...Oilers or whoever trades up. We really need to tank next year to score our Henrik replacement.

I might be in the minority here, but if Tkachuk is still on the board at #5, I think there's a chance Jimbo trades to move back a few spots on the drafts....he keeps saying that there's a d-man in the top six...Juolevi, Chychrun?

 

[JA]

The Canucks could very possibly move up to third overall and select Jesse Puljujärvi. If they find themselves unable to do this, then my preference at fifth would be Pierre-Luc Dubois. Both players are roughly the same size -- although Puljujärvi might be slightly larger -- and both are excellent playmakers with tremendous creativity, hard shots, and an ability to score goals. They are both touted for their rather complete games as well. Dubois might offer more physicality, while Puljujärvi undoubtedly offers more speed and explosiveness, and thus can create offense with his skating ability as well.

They both drive the offense on their line.

 

[CanaFan]

The Canucks could very possibly move up to third overall and select Jesse Puljujärvi. If they find themselves unable to do this, then my preference at fifth would be Pierre-Luc Dubois. Both players are roughly the same size -- although Puljujärvi might be slightly larger -- and both are excellent playmakers with tremendous creativity, hard shots, and an ability to score goals. They are both touted for their rather complete games as well. Dubois might offer more physicality, while Puljujärvi undoubtedly offers more speed and explosiveness, and thus can create offense with his skating ability as well.

They both drive the offense on their line.

Not saying I believe it is likely (because I think it is <1% chance of actually happening) but what would you be willing to offer up from a Vancouver standpoint to make that deal happen? Obviously CBJ is going to want a significant kicker on top of our 5th pick in order to move out of the top 3, even if they really do covet PLD.

Would you be willing to go as high as 5th + Horvat? Hutton? Boeser? What is your upper limit? And what is the min. you think CBJ would want in return?

 

[JA]

Not saying I believe it is likely (because I think it is <1% chance of actually happening) but what would you be willing to offer up from a Vancouver standpoint to make that deal happen? Obviously CBJ is going to want a significant kicker on top of our 5th pick in order to move out of the top 3, even if they really do covet PLD.

Would you be willing to go as high as 5th + Horvat? Hutton? Boeser? What is your upper limit? And what is the min. you think CBJ would want in return?

I wouldn't offer much, to be honest; I don't think there is enough of a difference between Puljujärvi and Dubois to sacrifice a key member of this team's future core.

Blue Jackets fans in the Trade section thread have been stating that they want David Clarkson off of their books, so I would be fine with taking Clarkson back and also giving back the 2nd round pick that they owe us from the Tortorella signing.

To CBJ: 5th overall, 2nd round pick (2017 or 2018)
To VAN: 3rd overall, Clarkson

This poster says that they want 5th + roster player in exchange for 3rd + Clarkson. Instead of relinquishing the roster player, we could probably trade that roster player for a higher 2nd round pick than we would probably receive from Columbus, as they have the choice of year.

None of these actually meet the objectives that are trying to be met - a very good player now, and a NMC going the other way so we can keep said player through the expansion draft.

Understand this: We Do Not Need MORE Prospects. Our prospect depth is among the best in the NHL. This is not a "give up on elite to get several very good" exercise, here. It's a "give up on elite to get one very good and one Current Very Good Roster Player - and, oh, yeah, get rid of an NMC in the process so we can keep that roster player" exercise.

On the high end, I would probably make this offer:

To CBJ: 5th overall, Hansen
To VAN: 3rd overall, Clarkson

We probably aren't in the best position to move up, as Columbus seems intent on drafting a player ranked in the 6-8th range. Other teams in those positions would be paying more to move up several spots, while the Jackets would probably be able to draft the player they want anywhere from 5th to 8th.

It wouldn't make sense for us to offer as much as other teams might, as Dubois isn't really a far step down from Puljujärvi. I wouldn't do it if we can't get it done in a balanced trade. If they want roster depth, we could give them Chris Higgins as well, who had a pretty good year for John Tortorella in 2013-14.

 

[F A N]

I wonder if Benning gave his old boss a call before making the McCann trade. Canucks will pick Dubois?

 

[Verviticus]

crazy to think that a package of 5 + shinkaruk + mccann + 33rd could probably have moved us up to the top 3 but we have granlund and gudbranson instead

 

[F A N]

crazy to think that a package of 5 + shinkaruk + mccann + 33rd could probably have moved us up to the top 3 but we have granlund and gudbranson instead

I'm not sold on Puljujarvi. I rather have Gudbranson and #5 (Dubois or Tkachuk) than #3 and not having a chance at Matthews or Laine.

 

[JA]

I'm not sold on Puljujarvi. I rather have Gudbranson and #5 (Dubois or Tkachuk) than #3 and not having a chance at Matthews or Laine.

Puljujärvi is a great puck mover, rusher, and puck hound. For a 6'3'' 200+ pound player, he can skate extremely well and is a marvelous playmaker. Speed and explosiveness are two of his best traits. His skating reminds me of Ilya Kovalchuk.

He has a powerful shot that needs to be improved in terms of its accuracy, but I can see him scoring 20 and pushing for 30 goals in his best NHL season.

 

[CanaFan]

I wouldn't offer much, to be honest; I don't think there is enough of a difference between Puljujärvi and Dubois to sacrifice a key member of this team's future core.

Blue Jackets fans in the Trade section thread have been stating that they want David Clarkson off of their books, so I would be fine with taking Clarkson back and also giving back the 2nd round pick that they owe us from the Tortorella signing.

To CBJ: 5th overall, 2nd round pick (2017 or 2018)
To VAN: 3rd overall, Clarkson

This poster says that they want 5th + roster player in exchange for 3rd + Clarkson. Instead of relinquishing the roster player, we could probably trade that roster player for a higher 2nd round pick than we would probably receive from Columbus, as they have the choice of year.

On the high end, I would probably make this offer:

To CBJ: 5th overall, Hansen
To VAN: 3rd overall, Clarkson

We probably aren't in the best position to move up, as Columbus seems intent on drafting a player ranked in the 6-8th range. Other teams in those positions would be paying more to move up several spots, while the Jackets would probably be able to draft the player they want anywhere from 5th to 8th.

It wouldn't make sense for us to offer as much as other teams might, as Dubois isn't really a far step down from Puljujärvi. I wouldn't do it if we can't get it done in a balanced trade. If they want roster depth, we could give them Chris Higgins as well, who had a pretty good year for John Tortorella in 2013-14.

Fair, I'd make that offer too and I'm also very high on Dubois at 5. But if you *could* get Pulju for a cap dump and a 2nd or Hansen then that's done in 2 seconds. Was just curious as I know you're mega high on Laine (if I am recalling your posts correctly) and wondered if you felt nearly the same about Pulju. I can see you obviously do not

 

[JA]

Fair, I'd make that offer too and I'm also very high on Dubois at 5. But if you *could* get Pulju for a cap dump and a 2nd or Hansen then that's done in 2 seconds. Was just curious as I know you're mega high on Laine (if I am recalling your posts correctly) and wondered if you felt nearly the same about Pulju. I can see you obviously do not

Circumstances changed when the Canucks lost their 33rd overall pick and McCann. It's much tougher now to put together an offer for either Laine or Puljujärvi that makes sense, as I would have prioritized that over the Gudbranson deal.

I am very high on Laine, and I am almost as high on Puljujärvi. Most of our high-end prospects were always off the table, though.

Upon further consideration, I would part with Sven Baertschi if it was needed. Puljujärvi is a higher-end player that Baertschi will ever be, in my opinion. There won't be room for him on the first two lines with so many other top-six forwards in the lineup for at least two more seasons.

To CBJ: 5th, Hansen, Baertschi
To VAN: 3rd, Clarkson

That would give us the second line of Virtanen-Horvat-Puljujärvi next season, and a top line of the Sedins and Burrows. With Boeser on his way the following season, the top six is already going to be very full, and if we are targeting any high-end free agents to add to that group, there won't be any room for Baertschi in 2017-18.

I can see Puljujärvi being a good fit with Virtanen, especially as they can both skate, and Puljujärvi can dish pucks. Virtanen will have chances to utilize his shot on the left side, and he'll be able to cut across the crease on his forehand just as he did so many times with the Hitmen. I see a lot of potential with Virtanen on the left side and an explosive puck carrier and elite playmaker like Puljujärvi setting him up.



Puljujärvi is a high-end player, and I believe he is an upgrade over Dubois. I think it would be worth making a push for him. It's more difficult to obtain the high-end players than it is to patch up the bottom nine.



If the offer I mentioned isn't enough, I would stay at fifth overall and pick Dubois.

 

[F A N]

I wouldn't offer much, to be honest; I don't think there is enough of a difference between Puljujärvi and Dubois to sacrifice a key member of this team's future core.

I'm not sure why you replied to my post about not being sure about Puljujarvi when you yourself think there isn't enough of a difference to sacrifice a key member of the team's future core (in this case Gudbranson).

Circumstances changed when the Canucks lost their 33rd overall pick and McCann. It's much tougher now to put together an offer for either Laine or Puljujärvi that makes sense, as I would have prioritized that over the Gudbranson deal.

I'm not so sure about that. You're talking about trading 2-3 spots down. The Blue Jackets and the Jets have been rebuilding for a while. They have plenty of young talent and plenty of picks. Next season, for the Blue Jackets it doesn't seem to make sense with their D looking the way it is so there may be a larger trade, but I think the Jets could use Gudbranson more than McCann and they already have an extra 1st round pick. The point is those teams are or should be looking at getting back to the playoffs. McCann and the 33rd overall pick aren't going to be as much help as Gudbranson.

 

[JA]

I'm not sure why you replied to my post about not being sure about Puljujarvi when you yourself think there isn't enough of a difference to sacrifice a key member of the team's future core (in this case Gudbranson).



I'm not so sure about that. You're talking about trading 2-3 spots down. The Blue Jackets and the Jets have been rebuilding for a while. They have plenty of young talent and plenty of picks. Next season, for the Blue Jackets it doesn't seem to make sense with their D looking the way it is so there may be a larger trade, but I think the Jets could use Gudbranson more than McCann and they already have an extra 1st round pick. The point is those teams are or should be looking at getting back to the playoffs. McCann and the 33rd overall pick aren't going to be as much help as Gudbranson.

I never mentioned Gudbranson, and I never considered him among the "key members" that I spoke of. I was specifically referring to our forward prospects, i.e., Horvat, Boeser, Virtanen.

I would trade Gudbranson + 5th to move up to 2nd overall.

The proposal I made earlier this month was 5th + 33rd + Tanev for the 2nd overall pick. An equivalent deal might be 5th + Gudbranson + Hansen, now that McCann and the 33rd have been converted into Gudbranson. That proposal seems less attractive than the earlier offer, however.

I am not sure that would make quite the same offer for the 3rd overall pick, as Columbus does not need defencemen; I also feel that Baertschi holds less value than Gudbranson, and so 5th + Hansen + Baertschi seems fair to move up two spots. 5th + Gudbranson + Hansen seems like a steep price to move up.

Honestly, a deal would be far easier if Alex Edler would waive his NTC -- he has, by far, more trade value than actual value to our team. I might offer 5th overall + Edler + Hansen for the 2nd overall pick. Chris Tanev is more important to this team than Alex Edler; Edler is 30 years old, and probably won't be useful to this team when it is competitive again. Gudbranson, meanwhile, is much younger as well and has more of a future with this club than Edler.

 

[ChilliBilly]

I never mentioned Gudbranson, and I never considered him among the "key members" that I spoke of. I was specifically referring to our forward prospects, i.e., Horvat, Boeser, Virtanen.

I would trade Gudbranson + 5th to move up to 2nd overall.

The proposal I made earlier this month was 5th + 33rd + Tanev for the 2nd overall pick. An equivalent deal might be 5th + Gudbranson + Hansen, now that McCann and the 33rd have been converted into Gudbranson. That proposal seems less attractive than the earlier offer, however.

I am not sure that would make quite the same offer for the 3rd overall pick, as Columbus does not need defencemen; I also feel that Baertschi holds less value than Gudbranson, and so 5th + Hansen + Baertschi seems fair to move up two spots. 5th + Gudbranson + Hansen seems like a steep price to move up.

Honestly, a deal would be far easier if Alex Edler would waive his NTC -- he has, by far, more trade value than actual value to our team. I might offer 5th overall + Edler + Hansen for the 2nd overall pick. Chris Tanev is more important to this team than Alex Edler; Edler is 30 years old, and probably won't be useful to this team when it is competitive again. Gudbranson, meanwhile, is much younger as well and has more of a future with this club than Edler.

I would rather have PLD and Gudolboy then the 3rd OA. Like many drafts, anyone in the top 5 could end up being the top player taken in the draft, And I find PLD to have interesting potential. I hope EDM takes MT with the 4th, though he certainly would give us more grit up front.

 

[polarbearcub]

Il be happy with pld but part of me will be sad we missed out on Matt tkachuk

 

[SvenBaertschi]

Il be happy with pld but part of me will be sad we missed out on Matt tkachuk

If we got Tkachuk I would be sad we didn't get pld. The one redeeming quality about dropping 2 spots in the lottery is that IMO 4th and 5th Overall aren't too vastly different this year.

 

[TruGr1t]

Il be happy with pld but part of me will be sad we missed out on Matt tkachuk

It's starting to look like PLD is consensus #4 so wouldn't worry. You'll get to see plenty of Tkachuk in a Canucks uniform.

 

[Hit the post]

Honestly, a deal would be far easier if Alex Edler would waive his NTC -- he has, by far, more trade value than actual value to our team. I might offer 5th overall + Edler + Hansen for the 2nd overall pick.

Yeah but realistically if you were Edler - why would you waive your NTC to go to a lottery pick team (granted THIS is a lottery pick team).

 

[racerjoe]

Yeah but realistically if you were Edler - why would you waive your NTC to go to a lottery pick team (granted THIS is a lottery pick team).

I don't think he wants to leave Van period, so this is really just devils advocate, but if he thinks they are on the upswing vs us on a downswing? Maybe there is a Swedish connection wit Forsberg to Sakic and Roy?

I agree it really is probably not happening.

 

[banme*]

It's starting to look like PLD is consensus #4 so wouldn't worry. You'll get to see plenty of Tkachuk in a Canucks uniform.

It's the opposite is it not

 

[Josepho]

It's the opposite is it not

It's neither. Both are very close. Think Daniel Sedin vs. Trevor Linden.

On another note, Tkachuk has been pretty good along the boards today and he's set up a lot of guys with some good passes. Just absolutely filthy offensive instincts.

And now he scores.

 

[banme*]

It's neither. Both are very close.

On another note, Tkachuk has been pretty good along the boards today and he's set up a lot of guys with some good passes. Just absolutely filthy offensive instincts.

Tkachuk always seems to be around the net. If you put it somewhere around there you can bet he's gonna get a stick on it.