2016 Draft Thread | 7
- Thread starter mrmyheadhurts
- Start date
- Status
Peter Griffin
Registered User
So say Edmonton wins the lottery and the Canucks' draft 3/4/5 overall, is there a trade to be made between the two teams? Would anyone entertain the idea of Chris Tanev and the pick, let's say 4th overall, for 1st overall and the chance to draft a potential franchise center? Would Edmonton?
I would assume Edmonton could add a better fitting defenseman (in terms of age) of a similar calibre by trading with another team instead.
After all, why would they be concerned about remaining in the top 5?
After all, why would they be concerned about remaining in the top 5?
Was wondering why did Marner's ppg did not improve from his draft year? Why is this not seen as a negative for him? It should go up if he is progressing and with other elite forwards. Anyways Thachuk and Debois likely are going to be very good players. I did not consider Keith Thachuk a complimentary top forward. Top 5 seems a step above if we get number 6 draft a faller if not might a well pick who they think is the top dman. Would be disappointing but is unlikely to happen.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
True, they could probably work something out around the Isles' with Hamonic and their pick but that would be a long drop down for a defenseman that isn't a #1 guy. I just figured that dropping 3-4 spots and picking up a legit top pairing guy would be somewhat interesting for them. Could also pick up a Chychrun and really overhaul their defense.
It might be interesting for them but I'd aim higher if I were Chiarelli. I think if you're passing up on Matthews you need a cornerstone player coming back (I like Tanev but I don't think he's that).. if not I'd probably take Matthews and start pursuing a trade of older players like Eberle or RNH to overhaul the blueline.
BROCK HUGHES
Registered User
Only thing that scare,s me with our lotto pick,is the coach we have on this team.I want this Vey lover gone.
Yeah, this is something I can see them do. Chychurn, Bean, Juolevi should be high on their list. They really need to start 'building' the team. No one in this draft is going to be better than McDavid, so they should really focus on defenceman since spots 4-6 has equal talent. Trading down would be a smart move for them.
Someone here wrote that Aquaman pretty much said as much. If so the only question is if he got there based on his own observations or if Lindenning planted the thought and he's echoing our scouting staff sentiment. Pray it's the latter.
I keep telling myself I'll stay the hell out of this thread until the lottery and I can't do it.
GetFocht
Indestructible
- Jun 11, 2013
- 9,077
- 4,373
This is such nonsense, he dominated u20 in a way that puts him up there as one of the best performances of all time. This is his 90th game of the year and he's injured. he's going to be a special player.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Laine has bad hockey sense or low iq since he can't make any passes or get assists. Don't we unilaterally make that claim just like we did for Virtanen
Problem with that is it's probably Mathews/Laine or bust for Benning and Willie D. Could saves their jobs and townhalls will be all smiles and back patting. The best thing for the franchise might be to be unlucky in the lottery, get a Dman who needs developing, and see the back of Linden and crew before that development happens.
Superlative Soup
Lights too bright
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,668
- 2,650
Canucks should NOT trade up in the draft if it involves moving picks/prospects
Canucks should NOT trade up in the draft if it involves moving picks/prospects:
I've had a change of heart and thought from 10-11 days ago.
10-11 days ago, I was all for packaging our 2016 1st along with Thatcher Demko if it meant guaranteeing us in drafting Matthews or Laine. I am now of the opinion that we should not do that.
Depth of prospect pool is always more important than perceived quality, and I use the term perceived because there is a significant 'wildcard' element to picks. In other words, we have no idea if Matthews is the next Anze Kopitar, David Legwand, or Patrik Stefan. Similarly, we have no idea if a guy like Matthew Tkatchuk ends up being like his father Keith, or like Shawn Antowski.
Obviously - landing a franchise center or a franchise defenseman via the draft is ideal, but I'm no longer a proponent of the idea of 'trading up.' Keep our 2016 1st, and let the chips fall where they may.................and oh yeah, lets offer Stamkos the "Toews" deal (will elaborate in another poster). #BuyLowSellHigh
Canucks should NOT trade up in the draft if it involves moving picks/prospects:
I've had a change of heart and thought from 10-11 days ago.
10-11 days ago, I was all for packaging our 2016 1st along with Thatcher Demko if it meant guaranteeing us in drafting Matthews or Laine. I am now of the opinion that we should not do that.
Depth of prospect pool is always more important than perceived quality, and I use the term perceived because there is a significant 'wildcard' element to picks. In other words, we have no idea if Matthews is the next Anze Kopitar, David Legwand, or Patrik Stefan. Similarly, we have no idea if a guy like Matthew Tkatchuk ends up being like his father Keith, or like Shawn Antowski.
Obviously - landing a franchise center or a franchise defenseman via the draft is ideal, but I'm no longer a proponent of the idea of 'trading up.' Keep our 2016 1st, and let the chips fall where they may.................and oh yeah, lets offer Stamkos the "Toews" deal (will elaborate in another poster). #BuyLowSellHigh
Why all the talk about trades if so and so wins a specific lottery pick? The chances of these scenarios are so slim that they aren't worth considering.
Bankerguy
Registered User
- Apr 28, 2013
- 4,000
- 2,241
Edmonton has RNH McDavid and the German guy all at center.
If they land 1st overall, wouldn't it make sense for them to trade down to number 2 and pick Laine. Bigger player than Matthews, more physical, absolute star potential, & natural winger to play alongside one of those 3 star centers. They could get some help at the D position at the same time. Could be worth it.
From a Canucks perspective, I would trade Tanev and pick# 2 or 3 for Mathews.
It may seem like an over payment on paper...but having that top line center from a young age... Every core needs one! if Canucks get a top 5 pick next year, you draft a star winger to play along side him, or a number 1 D.
If they land 1st overall, wouldn't it make sense for them to trade down to number 2 and pick Laine. Bigger player than Matthews, more physical, absolute star potential, & natural winger to play alongside one of those 3 star centers. They could get some help at the D position at the same time. Could be worth it.
From a Canucks perspective, I would trade Tanev and pick# 2 or 3 for Mathews.
It may seem like an over payment on paper...but having that top line center from a young age... Every core needs one! if Canucks get a top 5 pick next year, you draft a star winger to play along side him, or a number 1 D.
THE Green Man
Registered User
Because we are all bored out of our minds with no Canucks hockey on anymore. The countdown to the 30th is on so we all have hypothetical scenarios in mind until the results come.
Only if they could trade RNH for say Hamonic. If they were to add Tanev, Hamonic and Laine then that would be a no brainer for RNH and Matthews- you could even include Yak in that mix. Personally, I wouldn't even entertain the thought of moving Tanev to Edmonton. He's too valuable to us, and I have no interest in helping the Oilers reshape that d-core. Their forwards just have too much potential to dominate down the road for us to be the team to help them shore up their one huge weakness- much like us not moving Schneider to them.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 18,390
- 18,528
We have guaranteed Top 6 so aslong as it's one of:
Matthews
Laine
Pul
Tkachuk
Chychrun
Dubois
I'm good.
End of story.
Matthews
Laine
Pul
Tkachuk
Chychrun
Dubois
I'm good.
End of story.
Yes, doubt that even the Canucks could screw up with all those players on the board 1-6....at least there's no debate about players in the 6-10 range who might end up being better....and at least the Matthews fantasy is alive for another week or so.
alicia
PokeForce Queen
Rex Banner
Custom User Title
- Aug 22, 2013
- 1,914
- 3
If playing the draft lottery simulator has shown me anything, it's that were picking 5th or 6th. Set your expectations accordingly.
- Status
