Proposal: Vancouver: Boeser + 2017 1st round for a 20-22 year old "Top" center or defenseman

[Horse McHindu]

Vancouver: Boeser + 2017 1st round for a 20-22 year old "Top" center or defenseman

If you subscribe to the theory that

1) A franchise center or franchise defenseman is more important than a franchise winger

2) It's ok to trade 'green houses' for a guaranteed 'red hotel' even if there's a good chance that one or some of the green houses become red hotels themselves (not guaranteed mind you),

Then perhaps my idea of the Canucks packaging Boeser + 2017 1st overall has some kind of merit.

Brock Boeser will likely become a very good NHL player, but again, no guarantees. Given where the Canucks are projected to finish in the standings, there's a solid chance that the Canucks end up drafting in the bottom 3, but again, no guarantees. And obviously, the further away you move from the bottom 3, the less likely it is that your draftee becomes an NHL star.

Team trading for Brock Boeser and a 2017 1st overall:

Realistic best case scenario: Boeser becomes a bona-fide Top 6 forward, while the 2017 1st overall becomes a Top 6 FWD or Top 4 defenseman.

Worst case scenario: Both bust.


What the Canucks get:

A 20-22 year old Center or defenseman that is all but guaranteed to be a Top pairing defenseman or Top line Center. Whether they pan out to be franchise players however, is still questionable.

The guys I have in mind by the way are Nathan MacKinnon and Jacob Trouba........or someone within that range.

My personal belief is that a rebuilding team (such as the Canucks) biggest priority should be in solidifying their future center position and/or defense BEFORE adding to their wings. The Canucks are seemingly set in net with one of Demko and Markstrom, but are in dire need of a future Henrik Sedin replacement.

Having a good young defenseman to possibly complement Olli Juolevi would also be a huge plus. Also - if the Canucks brought in Trouba, you could then look to move Tanev for a Top 6 forward.

Click to read more...

 

[Daximus]

Not sure the Jets need Boeser. That isn't to say they don't want him. But the glut of young wingers in our system is already causing some logjams. What we need is more defencemen. If and when Trouba is traded that is what it will be for.

I think the Canucks need to keep Boeser and their first and go into a full rebuild ASAP. And draft themselves a 1C or 1D.

 

[TJ21]

Our first round pick is very likely to be a high pick. So why throw away a solid prospect, plus that high pick, for a player similar to one that we'd more than likely be drafting anyway? Makes zero sense.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

No team is going to trade a young bonadide top centerman or dman for that package. Btw That package>>>Jacob Trouba. Colorado doesn't trade Maxkinnon for that package.

Also, why don't we(Vancouver rebuild properly and draft a top centre man or dman with our next week and keep Boeser?

 

[Regal]

Ordinarily I'm of the mindset that getting the a great, established player who is still young is a win compared to a handful of potential, but the Canucks need so much help everywhere that I think a multitude of top end potential is the better way to go. Plus, considering the time it might take to get it turned around, even 3-4 years age difference might end up being important for trying to have players reach their primes.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Our first round pick is very likely to be a high pick. So why throw away a solid prospect, plus that high pick, for a player similar to one that we'd more than likely be drafting anyway? Makes zero sense.

That's the key word right there however: Likely

-Our 1st round pick is very likely to be a high pick, but no guarantees.....and no guarantees that even with a bottom 3 finish, we end up maintaining our lottery position or increasing our lottery position. We saw what happened this past summer.

-Brock Boeser will 'very likely' be a good NHL player, but again, no guarantees.

Our 1st overall and/or Boeser have a reasonable chance of becoming as a good as guys like Trouba and MacKinnon (either collectively, or individually), but again.....it's all projection.


In trading Boeser and the 2017 1st overall, the Canucks would be looking for more of a 'guarantee.' Not only a higher guarantee, but in a position (center or defense) that is more important than the wing.

That's my line of thought.

Yes - it's entirely possible that despite acquiring a 'guarantee', the pieces that the Canucks trade end up being worth more than the guarantee (think: Forsberg+ for Lindros all those years ago), but unfortunately, that's the (calculated) risk the Canucks would have to take in my proposed idea.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Or...y'know...the Canucks could try doing what every other NHL team does and finally try to draft and develop its own talent.

 

[93LEAFS]

That gets you Trouba. As for Mackinnon, I don't think it will. Also, the value of that pick is really dependent on how the season closes out.

I don't think you are going to land a bonafide franchise player by trade in that age group. If the draft was deeper at the top it is another story. My question is this though, why do you want to accelerate the rebuild so much? Vancouver needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Get a guy who you have an abundance of control over while you do this. If anyone is going to trade you a young franchise piece that you are asking for, you have to ask why? As a fan of a team that possess two of the quality players you want (Rielly and Matthews), I don't think we can afford to trade either. Matthews because the value just isn't there, and Rielly because while it is of adequete value it isn't enough of an overpayment to forget organizational need.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I think the Canucks need to keep Boeser and their first and go into a full rebuild ASAP. And draft themselves a 1C or 1D.

That's the conventional line of thought and is more or less what the Canucks will likely do.

Here's the thing though: Just because a team does poorly during the regular season, doesn't necessarily mean they will draft Top 2 given the new lottery system. The Canucks saw first hand this past summer as to what the lottery system can do (i.e. finish 28th overall, draft 5th).

Obviously, 1C and 1D's can be drafted anywhere in the draft, but the logic behind this proposal is....

1) Paying for a higher guarantee (i.e. trading green houses for a red hotel).
2) Speeding up the rebuilding process slightly (i.e. young players extremely close to entering their prime), while still becoming significantly younger as a whole. For instance - would you not consider a guy like Nathan MacKinnon to be a terrific young asset for a rebuilding team?

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

That's the key word right there however: Likely

-Our 1st round pick is very likely to be a high pick, but no guarantees.....and no guarantees that even with a bottom 3 finish, we end up maintaining our lottery position or increasing our lottery position. We saw what happened this past summer.

-Brock Boeser will 'very likely' be a good NHL player, but again, no guarantees.

Our 1st overall and/or Boeser have a reasonable chance of becoming as a good as guys like Trouba and MacKinnon (either collectively, or individually), but again.....it's all projection.


In trading Boeser and the 2017 1st overall, the Canucks would be looking for more of a 'guarantee.' Not only a higher guarantee, but in a position (center or defense) that is more important than the wing.

That's my line of thought.

Yes - it's entirely possible that despite acquiring a 'guarantee', the pieces that the Canucks trade end up being worth more than the guarantee (think: Forsberg+ for Lindros all those years ago), but unfortunately, that's the (calculated) risk the Canucks would have to take in my proposed idea.

So you want a guy who is at most 2-4 years older than the assets you're trading, who is a much more surefire bet of being a top player, who the other team has already developed, and you want them to accept a pick that may or may not be a top 3, may or may not make the nhl, make an impact, etc, and a prospect who by your words could even himself become a maybe?

So you offer no roster players, no replacement, etc. What team is in the right position, let alone right mind, to offer one of their best young players for a couple of maybes who won't make an impact as soon as the player they currently have?

 

[Hansen]

Would never give that package up for Trouba. MacKinnon, sure.


But we would be better off as a team focusing on developing our own assets. If we are going to totally give up on our ability to do that, then whos to say that Mack or whoever might not totally blow out over here?

Vilardi/Pettersson/Liljegren/Foote/whoever + Boeser could potentially benefit us far more down the road

 

[Horse McHindu]

My question is this though, why do you want to accelerate the rebuild so much?

It's not so much accelerating a rebuild, as much as it is in landing a "guarantee" (i.e. Nathan MacKinnon would have a projected higher likelihood of being a successful heir apparent to Henrik as opposed to a 2017 1st round center that we'd draft).

Hence - I'm willing to trade green houses for a red hotel, even if you risk some of those green houses either becoming as good as or superior to the red hotel (Think - Peter Forsberg+ for Eric Lindros deal all those years ago).

 

[Cancuks]

That would likely get us Nugent Hopkins but I don't want to watch Boeser-McDavid beat us down for the next 10-15 years. Rather move Juolevi + Virtanen for a center.

 

[Daximus]

That's the conventional line of thought and is more or less what the Canucks will likely do.

Here's the thing though: Just because a team does poorly during the regular season, doesn't necessarily mean they will draft Top 2 given the new lottery system. The Canucks saw first hand this past summer as to what the lottery system can do (i.e. finish 28th overall, draft 5th).

Obviously, 1C and 1D's can be drafted anywhere in the draft, but the logic behind this proposal is....

1) Paying for a higher guarantee (i.e. trading green houses for a red hotel).
2) Speeding up the rebuilding process slightly (i.e. young players extremely close to entering their prime), while still becoming significantly younger as a whole. For instance - would you not consider a guy like Nathan MacKinnon to be a terrific young asset for a rebuilding team?

IMO the timing right now is the best they might get.

Go full scorched earth. Package the Sedins and retain 50% on one of them and trade them for picks, prospects and most likely a major cap dump coming back. Trade Eriksson as fast as possible for a first and prospect. Deal Miller for whatever you can get for him.
Keep Virtanen down in Utica. Look for any and all ways to take on short term cap for assets like Arizona has done recently. Likely look for new front office staff as well, but that is for another post.
Tank hard this season and aim for a bottom finish. Hope you get a top 3 pick and take one of this years top C's (Patrick, Hischier or Vilardi) or Dman (Liljegren). Use any and all other assets to stack 1st to 3rd round picks for 2018 (it's a deep draft).
Really go after Dahlin next year if you get a C, if you get a D go for one of the C's or Svechnikov or someone on a similar level.
A core of Sutter, Granlund, Tanev, Horvat, Gaunce, Hutton, Boeser, Virtanen, Juolevi and Demko are who you build around. Everyone else is trade bait for the rebuild.
.

 

[Horse McHindu]

So you want a guy who is at most 2-4 years older than the assets you're trading, who is a much more surefire bet of being a top player, who the other team has already developed, and you want them to accept a pick that may or may not be a top 3, may or may not make the nhl, make an impact, etc, and a prospect who by your words could even himself become a maybe?

That's the thing though. Risk. High risk, high reward.

For those that have seen Brock Boeser, most pundits know that this kid is the real deal, and will likely be a very good NHL player. Key word being likely, yes. As for the 2017 1st overall, what if that ends up being Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren?

It's possible that any one of those guys becomes better or superior to someone like Trouba or MacKinnon.....and hence, making the deal very lobsided in said team's favor (i.e. Forsberg+ for Lindros deal).

As a Canucks fan however, that's an opportunity cost that I'm willing to forsake. I'd much rather the Canucks have a 'guarantee' (i.e. a higher 'guarantee' that we'd have a Henrik Sedin replacement, or a higher guarantee that we'd have a Top pairing defenseman for many years).

 

[93LEAFS]

It's not so much accelerating a rebuild, as much as it is in landing a "guarantee" (i.e. Nathan MacKinnon would have a projected higher likelihood of being a successful heir apparent to Henrik as opposed to a 2017 1st round center that we'd draft).

Hence - I'm willing to trade green houses for a red hotel, even if you risk some of those green houses either becoming as good as or superior to the red hotel (Think - Peter Forsberg+ for Eric Lindros deal all those years ago).

One, any young player you get who you'd deem of quality is probably going to have some question mark. I mean, how many centers are there that match what you want? There is the absolute no's such as McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, Barkov, and Ekblad. Then there are the guys who don't get moved because they require massive overpayments for the team to ignore the lack of depth it would create this applies especially to Risto and Rielly because defenders take longer to mature and those teams already have younger elite forwards to build around.

The list you are basically left with is this.

Monahan: Calgary thinks about it, but most likely declines.
Lindholm:could see the Ducks strongly considering it, but they probably view their window as closing due to Perry and Getzlaf's age and rather go all in.
Trouba: you'd be insane to do it, for a bunch of reasons. Primarily his offensive upside as a #1 is questionable, and two, he is on a bridge which will make him either harder to keep or has to be paid substantially soon.
Seth Jones: Columbus thinks long and hard, and this might be the best deal there is.

Most likely. though, you will have to look at the market of guys who are still very questionable and aren't bonafide #1's

Draisaitl: Not a true 1, I could see Edmonton highly interested in this due to having to pay him and McDavid on similar timelines, and if Liljegren has a strong 2nd half.
Larkin: unclear if he's a center or a #1 at that
W. Nylander: same as Larkin
Reinhart: Buffalo strongly considers but again same issues as Nylander and Larkin
Sam Bennett: same issues as above
Provorov: Philly probably declines, but again not a bonafide number 1 yet.
Werenski: Columbus declines.
Hanafin: Carolina probably does it, but he's not a bonafide #1 yet.

If you want a number 1c or D you are probably going to have to look in the under 25 range, and even then it will be very hard to find a deal.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

That's the thing though. Risk. High risk, high reward.

For those that have seen Brock Boeser, most pundits know that this kid is the real deal, and will likely be a very good NHL player. Key word being likely, yes. As for the 2017 1st overall, what if that ends up being Nolan Patrick or Timothy Liljegren?

It's possible that any one of those guys becomes better or superior to someone like Trouba or MacKinnon.....and hence, making the deal very lobsided in said team's favor (i.e. Forsberg+ for Lindros deal).

As a Canucks fan however, that's an opportunity cost that I'm willing to forsake. I'd much rather the Canucks have a 'guarantee' (i.e. a higher 'guarantee' that we'd have a Henrik Sedin replacement, or a higher guarantee that we'd have a Top pairing defenseman for many years).

I think you're missing something. The teams with the players you want to trade for, they already did their rebuild. They don't want prospects, they want players that can make results. Colorado doesn't want futures, they want to make the playoffs.

Side note, trading that for Trouba would probably and hopefully get Benning fired. Maybe that's the real idea though.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Or...y'know...the Canucks could try doing what every other NHL team does and finally try to draft and develop its own talent.

The Canucks have been drafting and developing its own talent in my opinion. Atleast for the past few years (i.e. Horvat, Gaunce, Demko, etc., etc.).

The problem however, is that we don't have any 'franchise' level prospects in the two most important positions other than Goaltending: Center and Defense.

Any team that is TRULY rebuilding, needs

1) A Franchise goalie
2) A Franchise Center
3) A Franchise defenseman

The Canucks have Demko in net, and Markstrom still has a shot of becoming a very very good goalie in this league, if he isn't one already. I think the Canucks are set in net.

At Center, while I love Bo Horvat, I don't think he's going to get to the level of a Henrik Sedin/Ryan Getzlaf/Joe Thornton, etc. I see him being a very very good #2 and best.

On Defense, the Canucks have Juolevi. The jury is still out on him, but outside of Juolevi, do the Canucks have any other potential franchise guys? As promising as Hutton, Stetcher, and Tryamkin have looked, do you see them becoming potential franchise guys?

So that's my proposal. Try and trade green houses for a red hotel at center or on defense.

At center, having a future franchise center playing 1-2 with Horvat would be a weapon. Or, if you go the defensive route, having a franchise defenseman playing with Juolevi could be a weapon as well.

Instead of tanking (i.e. hoping and praying) for said assets, and then waiting for a few more years to see if said assets pan out, I'd rather the Canucks maintain a competitive team and simply trade their green houses into hotels.

 

[WTG]

The only way I see Colorado trading MacKinnon for that is if the 1st is the 1st overall pick and they want a more cost controlled player.

Or else, why take the risk? You already know MacKinnon is gonna be a absolute stud.

Also, there is no way in hell I'd trade a 1st and Boeser for Trouba. We have enough defensemen

 

[Horse McHindu]

I think you're missing something. The teams with the players you want to trade for, they already did their rebuild.

While this is true, it's also true that a number of teams with young assets run into cap problems, and may look at other options. Anaheim for instance, had a situation with Hampus Lindholm this past summer. While a team like Anaheim was able to make things work, this isn't always the case.

As far as Jacob Trouba goes, the Canucks probably wouldn't have to give up Boeser AND a 2017 1st, but one of those assets being the focal point of a package should be able to land you someone like Trouba.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Also, there is no way in hell I'd trade a 1st and Boeser for Trouba. We have enough defensemen

If Boeser + 1st is overkill for Trouba, you can lessen the package (i.e. create a new package for Trouba, with only one of Boeser or the 1st being the focal point in said package).

Also - you can never have enough defenseman. Period. As Canucks fans, we should know all too well as to what happen when injuries occur on defense. Having said that, if the Canucks were to trade for Trouba, you could then look at moving Tanev for help up front (i.e. a good center prospect or high end pick perhaps).

 

[clunk]

Boeser and our first are not going anywhere.

We need two 1st line pieces, not one.

Boeser + a centre from this draft that can distribute and we have 2/3 of a future 1st line rather than one.

Trading them for a d-man would be downright crazy.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Boeser and our first are not going anywhere.

We need two 1st line pieces, not one.

Boeser + a centre from this draft that can distribute and we have 2/3 of a future 1st line rather than one.

Trading them for a d-man would be downright crazy.

The problem I have with this post, is

1) You assume that Boeser will automatically be a 1st line winger.
2) Our 2017 1st round pick will automatically be a 1st line player (center).

What if Boeser becomes a first line "complementary" type player (i.e. Milan Hedjuk calibre guy), but the center we draft ends up being a 2nd line center.

Would you not trade a 2nd line Center + Milan Hedjuk for a Top pairing defenseman?

Just wanted to give you the other side of the coin.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

The problem I have with this post, is

1) You assume that Boeser will automatically be a 1st line winger.
2) Our 2017 1st round pick will automatically be a 1st line player (center).

What if Boeser becomes a first line "complementary" type player (i.e. Milan Hedjuk calibre guy), but the center we draft ends up being a 2nd line center.

Would you not trade a 2nd line Center + Milan Hedjuk for a Top pairing defenseman?

Just wanted to give you the other side of the coin.

And you're back to what if the other teams see it that way? Would you trade a top pairing defender for Milan Hedjuk (ridiculous example, even scored 50 goals oncr, was a main driving force in a cup win) and a second line center?

 

[Horse McHindu]

And you're back to what if the other teams see it that way? Would you trade a top pairing defender for Milan Hedjuk (ridiculous example, even scored 50 goals oncr, was a main driving force in a cup win) and a second line center?

I'll admit that the Hedjuk example wasn't a good one.

The point I was trying to make was that Boeser and the 2017 1st overall pick are wildcards (i.e. could be better, worse, or on par with projections), while the guy that I'd like to trade for with said package, is more of a guarantee in a more important position (Center or Goaltending).

We could spin in circles all day with this however (i.e. our 2017 1st round ends up being the 1st overall pick, Patrick defies odds and becomes as good as Auston Matthews, Brock Boeser becomes the next Bret Hull, and so forth).

A team might see Boeser and our 2017 1st and feel that those two assets will be locks to become very very good NHL players (and may pull the trigger on a trade, with the mindset that they'd be giving up one excellent asset for two excellent ones).