Proposal: The Canucks, in theory, should be looking to trade Brock Boeser and Elias Pettersson

[Josepho]

Colorado and Dallas aren't going to trade guys for someone they passed on a year after the draft and I'm willing to bet we're happy with our guy.

 

[docbenton]

Why not just play Boeser at center then, lol. He's good on faceoffs, can defend, has strength to win battles, great playmaker, played C in college for a stretch. He could probably do it if Pettersson ends up being a winger.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don’t agree.
I think it’s significantly easier to draft and/or acquire good wingers than it is to draft and/or acquire good centers, defenseman, and goalies.
If you take care of the C D and G’s first, the F’s will follow. That’s just my take though.

Reading comprehension again, man.

Lolllllllll
That’s exactly what you implied with your post!
If it’s not?
Do you mind spelling it out to me?
Because any sane man reading your post would deduce the same thing that I did.

I thought I did spell it out for you by equating it to the folly of drafting for positional need, but you seemed to misinterpret that the same way and seemed to end up agreeing with drafting for positional need.

You can't expect to just make lateral trades to have equivalent players at your preferred positions.

Translation: Even if you have a preference for defense or center, so does everyone else, it's obvious-- You're not going to be able to easily get identical return for an equivalent player playing a more desirable position.

That would be accounted for in a trade and the return would be indicative of that preference

Translation: You would just end up taking on an additional risk/hit if you attempted to do so anyways. The fact that C/D are more desirable is factored into the perceived value of the players in a trade.

and position isn't such a be all end all that anyone should be willing to take the hit that would be necessary.

Translation: Even if Ds/Cs are desired over wingers, it's not so much so that you should be willing to take that lower return/added risk regardless, unless you're actually in a bad position and your hand is forced.

Reading comprehension, man.
It's the equivalent of drafting for positional need and expecting to come out of that well.

Translation: This is even more clear when looking at the same problem with drafting for positional need. When you're playing with such a high degree of uncertainty of outcome, and a preference for C/D is already accounted for in perceived draft placement, it's foolish to be willing to take an additional hit on top of that solely for the sake of positional need, thinking that you've just made a shrewd and advantageous move.

Implied: It's one thing to take that risk and be willing to take on lower return when dealing from a position of strength, but trading your only two promising blue-chip wingers thinking that you'll get the equivalent centerman and defense in return without taking on an additional hit/risk or being willing to take that additional hit/risk is silly. Especially when it's debateable if one of those wingers is a winger or a center, and the jury's still out. This is further magnified by the uncertainty of players like Pettersson/Heiskanen and the prospects behind them. It's as foolish as saying "Oh darn, we got Ovechkin, but obviously centers are better. Wait! I have a cunning plan-- let's just trade him for Crosby."

How would any sane man read the two posts in question as "LOLZ, Ds/Cs are overrated, wingers are just as good!"?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Remember when Edmonton tried to do this with Hall for Larsson and 16th overall for Reinhart? Lol.