Toggle sidebar

2016 Draft Thread | 7

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
you can tell Benning values Centers over any other position in the draft, it's almost certain that Dubois is 4th on their list.
 
CanaFan said:
Ok so this is maybe the most interesting, nuanced quote I've seen from Benning on how he views this draft:



http://www.theprovince.com/sports/h...ey+draft+homer+with+laine/11884204/story.html

So it looks to break down like this:

First line forward > Top Pair D

Top Pair D / Top 4 D > Second line forward


Interesting. And makes perfect sense to me. We are pretty stocked with current/potential second line ceiling forwards. Baertschi, McCann, Virtanen, even Horvat all project best as second line guys (and please don't come at me for calling Horvat a 2C, I know he could be more but for now he's a 2C) so we are pretty stocked in that area. But there is a dearth of legit top line forwards anywhere in our organization and with the Sedins pushing 36 in September this has to be a priority going forward.

So it really comes down to how Benning views the forwards available. Does he see Dubois as a First line player? Most rankings and scouting services describe him as such so I would think Benning would take him if available. The more interesting question is how he see's Tkachuk. Production would put him clearly as a First line forward however the 'Marner-factor' casts some question on that. I think that's going to be the key as to who the Canucks would take at 5 or 6, namely whether they see Tkachuk as a legit First liner or as more of a second line, complimentary player. If it is the latter, then I can see Juolevi or a trade-back scenario coming into play. If Benning sees Tkachuk as the former, then I think we are taking a forward anywhere 1-5 and only a D at 6.
Click to expand...

I think this is fair. Though, I would still rank a 2nd line center over a top 4 D based on the talent available in this draft. A player like Jost, I would rank above any of the D available. I would arguably say that I like Nylander more than any D available as well. But if his list is Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, Dubois, Tkachuk, Joulevi, I can't say I am too upset about that.
 
Clear Cut said:
you can tell Benning values Centers over any other position in the draft, it's almost certain that Dubois is 4th on their list.
Click to expand...

Center/defense should be of higher importance. Unless you Think Tkachuk is a top line player I think you have to pass on him. All you have to do is look at the free agent market this summer to realize how valuable centers/defenseman are in comparison to wingers. Teams don't go crazy attempting to retain Top 6 wingers like they do with Top 6 C/Top 4 D.


I think Benning has grand plans (unfortunately) for free agency which involve a winger or two which is why I think Dubois would his obvious target. If you are targeting wingers in free agency looking for long term contracts I don't know why you would take Tkachuk with a high draft pick. You either block that picks path to success or end up with a 6 million dollar player playing on your 3rd line.
 
Bad News Benning said:
Center/defense should be of higher importance. Unless you Think Tkachuk is a top line player I think you have to pass on him. All you have to do is look at the free agent market this summer to realize how valuable centers/defenseman are in comparison to wingers. Teams don't go crazy attempting to retain Top 6 wingers like they do with Top 6 C/Top 4 D.


I think Benning has grand plans (unfortunately) for free agency which involve a winger or two which is why I think Dubois would his obvious target. If you are targeting wingers in free agency looking for long term contracts I don't know why you would take Tkachuk with a high draft pick. You either block that picks path to success or end up with a 6 million dollar player playing on your 3rd line.
Click to expand...

Grand plans are simply that, plans. I don't think you can plan the structure of your team on a go forward basis using free agency as the means. It just doesn't work and has a very high risk of failure. Just not smart. I very, very much doubt that there are ANY wingers in free agency this year that are likely to sign with Vancouver which have the potential that Tkachuk has. He is really getting underrated because of who he is playing with.

I would take Tkachuk at 5 with no issues whatsoever (assuming PLD is gone by 4).
 
coastal_nuck said:
Grand plans are simply that, plans. I don't think you can plan the structure of your team on a go forward basis using free agency as the means. It just doesn't work and has a very high risk of failure. Just not smart. I very, very much doubt that there are ANY wingers in free agency this year that are likely to sign with Vancouver which have the potential that Tkachuk has. He is really getting underrated because of who he is playing with.

I would take Tkachuk at 5 with no issues whatsoever (assuming PLD is gone by 4).
Click to expand...

Agree. I think when you are this high in the draft you just need to draft TALENT. Whether it is a F or D I don't think really matters that much, but for god's sake take the best talent you can find. My only issue with all this focus on drafting a D at 4 or 5 is that none of the D in this particular draft seem worth taking that high. It's like people "want" there to be a D worth taking so they prop up Chychrun or Juolevi as something more than they are in order to justify the potential selection. At this point, neither seems likely to be a top guy and even maybe not a top 2 guy. Dubois for me has all the characteristics of a top line F and even Tkachuk, despite people's concerns, still has the skill set and IQ to play that top line role. I just can't get behind passing on that in order to take a D that, to me, looks no better than a Ben Hutton in the end. Good player, would love to add at 6-9, but not in the top 5.
 
coastal_nuck said:
I think this is fair. Though, I would still rank a 2nd line center over a top 4 D based on the talent available in this draft. A player like Jost, I would rank above any of the D available. I would arguably say that I like Nylander more than any D available as well. But if his list is Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, Dubois, Tkachuk, Joulevi, I can't say I am too upset about that.
Click to expand...

Agree. From a player ranking, I prefer those F over any of the available D as well. But if this is how Benning is going to prioritize the "F vs D" question, then I can live with it. Certainly beats all of these "If we fall out of the top 3 Benning says we are definitely take a D" tea-leaves readers that have been popping up for the last month. It honestly never made any sense and there was so much bad interpretation going on to suit narratives. I'm glad that this more or less sets the record straight, even though I don't think he is beholden to actually do the things he says in the media.
 
coastal_nuck said:
Grand plans are simply that, plans. I don't think you can plan the structure of your team on a go forward basis using free agency as the means. It just doesn't work and has a very high risk of failure. Just not smart. I very, very much doubt that there are ANY wingers in free agency this year that are likely to sign with Vancouver which have the potential that Tkachuk has. He is really getting underrated because of who he is playing with.

I would take Tkachuk at 5 with no issues whatsoever (assuming PLD is gone by 4).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Tkachuk would be the wrong pick at 5....I mean after PLD there is a host of players that could turn out to be good/bad picks in a few years time. I don't think there is a consensus forward or defenseman in this draft after the Top 4 that you can confidently predict to be a 1st line forward/Top pairing defenseman.

I do think that it is more likely you see the canucks take Juolevi over Tkachuk unless they really like Tkachuk and believe he has top line upside. The canucks can add a 2nd line winger in free agency....what they won't likely find in free agency is 1st line forwards. Thus the question becomes....do the canucks view Tkachuk as a 1st line winger or more of a 2nd line winger?? We will find out if the canucks pick 5th/6th.

I'm not on any particular bandwagon other the one that hopes we get lucky tomorrow and there is nothing to debate. I'm not confident we will get a player to build around at 5 or 6 so my excitement for this draft is solely based around what happens tomorrow.
 
ahmon said:
of maybe after watching Dubois in the playoffs, he's decided Tkachuk is better?

We just dont' know what Benning's list looks like.
Click to expand...


Well if the preference is C or D, then Tkachuk is in tough for the #5 spot. Positional preference is a factor here (per Benning's quote).
 
Zombotron said:
Two of Edmonton, Vancouver, Columbus, Calgary and Winnipeg are going to be scratching their heads
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not sure that it's that clear cut that you take Tkachuk over one of the defenseman at number 5. I would prefer Tkachuk. At number 6 it's completely wide open, IMO.
 
Bleach Clean said:
Well if the preference is C or D, then Tkachuk is in tough for the #5 spot. Positional preference is a factor here (per Benning's quote).
Click to expand...

Actually if you check the quote from this morning's Province (see last page), it seems to be more about line up order than position.

Basically Benning says Top Line F > Top Pair D, but Top 4 D > Second Line F.

Which makes sense to me given the glut of good-but-not-quite-top-line forwards that we have.

Of course it all depends on whether Benning sees Tkachuk as a genuine top line F or more of a second line type.
 
CanaFan said:
Actually if you check the quote from this morning's Province (see last page), it seems to be more about line up order than position.

Basically Benning says Top Line F > Top Pair D, but Top 4 D > Second Line F.

Which makes sense to me given the glut of good-but-not-quite-top-line forwards that we have.

Of course it all depends on whether Benning sees Tkachuk as a genuine top line F or more of a second line type.
Click to expand...


Didn't he also say he would consider a Dman from 4 through 6? And that C and D are preferred over wings (this last quote/insight makes a big difference)?
 
Just speculating but I think Bennings list looks like this:

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljijarvi
4. Dubois
5. Tkachuk
6. Juolevi

Which I'm fine with but I really don't want Juolevi so I hope we pick top 5
 
Gaunce4gm said:
Just speculating but I think Bennings list looks like this:

1. Matthews
2. Laine
3. Puljijarvi
4. Dubois
5. Tkachuk
6. Juolevi

Which I'm fine with but I really don't want Juolevi so I hope we pick top 5
Click to expand...

That's what mine looks like but with Chychrun at 6
 
Bleach Clean said:
Well if the preference is C or D, then Tkachuk is in tough for the #5 spot. Positional preference is a factor here (per Benning's quote).
Click to expand...

There's a fair chance imo Dubois develops into a winger.

who knows maybe after the u18s, the C is Tyson Jost.
 
ahmon said:
There's a fair chance imo Dubois develops into a winger.

who knows maybe after the u18s, the C is Tyson Jost.
Click to expand...


I think that about Dubois as well, but here's the insight I am referring to:


duplo said:
Hey guys,

I know how much you LOVE unsolicited rumours, but everything Benning said in that interview reaffirmed what my friend told me. Take it or leave it, but my friend is a reputable source who works in the industry. If you look at my post history, I've never put anything out there like this and I generally try to avoid attention.

Here's the deets I was given yesterday:

- Benning and the gang are all about drafting a centre or a d-man. They don't care about wingers at all.

- That being said, the big three is the big three. They won't hesitate to draft any of those three if they're lucky enough to. Here's the thing though. There's an outside chance they'd take Puljujärvi over Laine, but it's doubtful. The reason is they could try and convert Pulju as a centre.

- It's the same reason they definitively like Dubois at the 4 spot. They'd want to develop him as a centre.

- What's SUPER NOT COOL is that after that, they're all about a d-man. Juolevi is their guy right now, followed by Sergachev. He said he's 90% sure they'd take Juolevi at 6, with a strong chance of reaching even further and taking him if they draft at 5. I hope he's wrong, but as of now they're saying that's where they're leaning.
Click to expand...


My opinion was referencing this information. Thoughts?
 
If I'm Benning and I have the 1st pick I'm taking Matthews or trading to 2nd and taking Laine.

Taking Laine 1st is a risk.
 
TheBrockBoesMonster said:
If I'm Benning and I have the 1st pick I'm taking Matthews or trading to 2nd and taking Laine.

Taking Laine 1st is a risk.
Click to expand...

If I'm Benning and I have the 1st pick I'm throwing the biggest party at my house and swimming in a bed of dollar bills. Johnny Manziel would be jealous.

Can't see Benning dealing the 1st overall as from a pure marketing aspect it's a goldmine for the franchise. First ever 1st overall pick in franchise history...he would sell tickets/jerseys even when the team is playing like crap.

This is all fantasy though....canucks have no luck in these situations.
 
Bleach Clean said:
Didn't he also say he would consider a Dman from 4 through 6? And that C and D are preferred over wings (this last quote/insight makes a big difference)?
Click to expand...

Technically he said at 5 or 6 in the Sportsnet interview (did not include 4). He also said he *would*, not that he *will* (indicating it is possible, not that it is imminent).

The latest quote in the Province is key to me because it shifts the weight of the decision away from strict position and more to role on the team.

Top Line F (i.e. Sedin replacements) is priority #1

Top 2/4 D is priority #2

Second line forward is priority #3


Now that certainly leaves room for Juolevi at 6 and even 5 if they aren't high on Tkachuk, but it certainly clarifies their priorities to me away from strict position and more position-role combinations.
 
Last edited:
CanaFan said:
Technically he said at 5 or 6 in the Sportsnet interview (did not include 4). He also said he *would*, not that he *will* (indicating it is possible, not that it is imminent).

The latest quote in the Province is key to me because it shifts the weight of the decision away from strict position and more to role on the team.

Top Line F (i.e. Sedin replacements) is priority #1

Top 2/4 D is priority #2

Second line forward is priority #3
Click to expand...


Understood. So at #5 or #6, he could go with Dman, not 'will go'.

My thought process here is to amalgamate what he is saying with past insight and from insight provided by Duplo. Something that passes all markers... because we really don't know if what he said in the Province will supersede *edit: what is said by Duplo, or if his earlier swooning over Tkachuk takes a back seat to Duplo's information. That's why I'm trying to find a common thread between all information provided.

In that sense, it seems that the 'hammer' here is Duplo's information regarding Cs and Ds over Ws.
 
Last edited:
While I understand the whole 1st line forward over 1st pairing D and then top 4 day over a top 6 forward. I would still take players like Nylander and Jost over Juolevi or Chychrun. Nylander definitely has 1st line winger potential and Jost can be a top end 2C in the mold of Kyle Turris which is more valuable than a top 4 defenseman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom