Discussion 2016 NHL Entry Draft [June 24-25th || Buffalo, New York]

[sharbinder]

1 hour ago, CanuckMan10 said:

Probably not worth its own thread because theres a lot of if's involved, but say Edmonton drafts Tkachuk at 4 would you accept:

 

Van: 9th OA and Noah Juulsen

Mon: 5th OA

 

Juulsen's value is at a low right now as he regressed points wise, but there is a reasonable explanation outlined here basically saying that Everett had no players near PPG and play a very defensive system. The author believes he became a better player and his points don't do him justice.

 

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2016/4/4/11352394/noah-juulsen-is-better-than-the-stats-indicate-update-highlights-habs-prospect-report-canadiens

 

At 9 we'll still have our option of one of Juolevi, Chycrun, Sergachev, Bean to walk away from the draft with 2 top 4 defenseman. OR you could look at other options like Jost and pick up Johansen or Clague at 33.

 

I personally feel like if we add an offensive defenseman like Juolevi or Bean as well as a strong 2 way guy like Juulsen that our D pool looks solid enough to start looking for some skilled forwards in the later rounds and have a speedy rebuild.

If that's an offer to be done with Montreal. They are giving us 

 

9th + Juulsen + 39th

 

othereise we take Tkachuk/Dubois

[ForsbergTheGreat]

40 minutes ago, CanuckMan10 said:

Probably not worth its own thread because theres a lot of if's involved, but say Edmonton drafts Tkachuk at 4 would you accept:

 

Van: 9th OA and Noah Juulsen

Mon: 5th OA

 

Juulsen's value is at a low right now as he regressed points wise, but there is a reasonable explanation outlined here basically saying that Everett had no players near PPG and play a very defensive system. The author believes he became a better player and his points don't do him justice.

 

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2016/4/4/11352394/noah-juulsen-is-better-than-the-stats-indicate-update-highlights-habs-prospect-report-canadiens

 

At 9 we'll still have our option of one of Juolevi, Chycrun, Sergachev, Bean to walk away from the draft with 2 top 4 defenseman. OR you could look at other options like Jost and pick up Johansen or Clague at 33.

 

I personally feel like if we add an offensive defenseman like Juolevi or Bean as well as a strong 2 way guy like Juulsen that our D pool looks solid enough to start looking for some skilled forwards in the later rounds and have a speedy rebuild.

I'd be looking at all the ways possible to get that 9th overall without giving up our #5 pick.

 

If Dubois is gone by #5,  MTL probably wouldn’t be that interest in moving up.  With Price being in his prime there window to win is now, adding a piece like Edler to replace the aging Markov is a step in the right direction. 

 

Ideally I would do

 

Edler + 33rd + Brisebois and/or Grenier

For the 9th overall + Markov (cap dump) + 40th

 

Realistically Edler is already top pairing D.  With the Dmen still available at 9, the “hope” is they one day become a top pairing D in 3-5 years.  Edler removes the risk and helps them out in the now.  MTL also saves some cap and upgrades Subban’s D partner, while getting some young local pieces.  They still will have 2 picks in the 2nd round.

 

Canucks get the 9th overall where we can take a young D and although Markov is mostly a cap dump, he could be a decent mentor for our young Russian, Tryamkin.  We’d leave the draft with Tkachuk @ #5 and likely Sergachev @ #9.  That would be a huge win in our prospect pool.  We could either role with Markov for a year as a stop gap with the hope that both Hutton and Tryamkin can step up into the top 4 role, Or we could resign Hamhuis as a stop gap. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'd be looking at all the ways possible to get that 9th overall without giving up our #5 pick.

 

If Dubois is gone by #5,  MTL probably wouldn’t be that interest in moving up.  With Price being in his prime there window to win is now, adding a piece like Edler to replace the aging Markov is a step in the right direction. 

 

Ideally I would do

 

Edler + 33rd + Brisebois and/or Grenier

For the 9th overall + Markov (cap dump) + 40th

 

Realistically Edler is already top pairing D.  With the Dmen still available at 9, the “hope” is they one day become a top pairing D in 3-5 years.  Edler removes the risk and helps them out in the now.  MTL also saves some cap and upgrades Subban’s D partner, while getting some young local pieces.  They still will have 2 picks in the 2nd round.

 

Canucks get the 9th overall where we can take a young D and although Markov is mostly a cap dump, he could be a decent mentor for our young Russian, Tryamkin.  We’d leave the draft with Tkachuk @ #5 and likely Sergachev @ #9.  That would be a huge win in our prospect pool.  We could either role with Markov for a year as a stop gap with the hope that both Hutton and Tryamkin can step up into the top 4 role, Or we could resign Hamhuis as a stop gap. 

I'm game for this...but who's playing 1st pair in this scenario? Unless we can sign/trade for another #2D, this is a non-starter IMO.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

58 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I'm game for this...but who's playing 1st pair in this scenario? Unless we can sign/trade for another #2D, this is a non-starter IMO.

Three options

a )

Hutton Tanev

Markov Sbisa

Trymakin Larsen

Pedan

 

b )

Hamhuis Tanev

Hutton Tryamkin

Markov Sbisa

Pedan Larsen

 

c )

Yandle Tanev

Hutton Tryamkin

Markov Sbisa

Pedan Larsen

 

But the hard decision is we really only need a 1 or 2 year stop gap to by Tryamkin, Hutton and Sergachev some more time to develop.  Hutton could be a top pairing guy as early as next season,  Tryamkin is a bit of a long shot but could develop into that guy, and Sergachev likely needs 3 years.  A big UFA like yandle will likely want 4-5 years min and removes the opportunity of the young guys which could prolong their development,  That makes Markov or even Hamhuis more attractive,  Basically we'd have to go 1-2 years of D by committee, until someone is ready to step up and take the role as our #1 guy.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Three options

a )

Hutton Tanev

Markov Sbisa

Trymakin Larsen

Pedan

 

b )

Hamhuis Tanev

Hutton Tryamkin

Markov Sbisa

Pedan Larsen

 

c )

Yandle Tanev

Hutton Tryamkin

Markov Sbisa

Pedan Larsen

 

But the hard decision is we really only need a 1 or 2 year stop gap to by Tryamkin, Hutton and Sergachev some more time to develop.  Hutton could be a top pairing guy as early as next season,  Tryamkin is a bit of a long shot but could develop into that guy, and Sergachev likely needs 3 years.  A big UFA like yandle will likely want 4-5 years min and removes the opportunity of the young guys which could prolong their development,  That makes Markov or even Hamhuis more attractive,  Basically we'd have to go 1-2 years of D by committee, until someone is ready to step up and take the role as our #1 guy.

I don't like any of those three options. Those first pairs in particular are small, void of pretty much any grit/toughness and two are either too young (Hutton) or too old (Hamhuis) to regularly play top pair... especially at that size.

 

They'd get steam rolled.

 

This management is not going to purposely tank and that ^^^ would be tanking. Not going to happen IMO.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I don't like any of those three options. Those first pairs in particular are small, void of pretty much any grit/toughness and two are either too young (Hutton) or too old (Hamhuis) to regularly play top pair... especially at that size.

 

They'd get steam rolled.

 

This management is not going to purposely tank and that ^^^ would be tanking. Not going to happen IMO.

Defence by committee.  Canucks won't be cup favourites but we'd still be competitive.  Again 1 or 2 years of development where Hutton or Try or Sergachev can work into that role.  It would give them the best opportunity to get meaningful NHL minutes and learn.  Look at the Stars right now Goligoski and Klingberg are their top pairing which is small with little grit and stars seem to be ok.  And with the size we'd have between Sbisa, Tryamkin and Pedan i wouldn't be to worried about needing size from the back end.

 

 Realistically removing Edler with the addition of Markov, with Hutton + Tryamkin taking on a bigger roles our D doesn't all of the sudden get tank worthy.

 

Also not signing a big UFA or trading for a expensive top 2 D, Canucks would have money to spend upfront on a player like Okposo.  

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Defence by committee.  Canucks won't be cup favourites but we'd still be competitive.  Again 1 or 2 years of development where Hutton or Try or Sergachev can work into that role.  It would give them the best opportunity to get meaningful NHL minutes and learn.  Look at the Stars right now Goligoski and Klingberg are their top pairing which is small with little grit and stars seem to be ok.  And with the size we'd have between Sbisa, Tryamkin and Pedan i wouldn't be to worried about needing size from the back end.

 

 Realistically removing Edler with the addition of Markov, with Hutton + Tryamkin taking on a bigger roles our D doesn't all of the sudden get tank worthy.

 

Also not signing a big UFA or trading for a expensive top 2 D, Canucks would have money to spend upfront on a player like Okposo.  

I'd prefer we not thrust Hutton in to a top 4 role before we have to personally. I'm also not convinced he's top pair even in his prime ideally.

 

Try and and especially Sergachev are likely to need a HELL of a lot more than 1-2 years to be even considered top 4 ready IMO.

 

D isn't exactly Dallas strength. They need to outscore their opponents to win (and with their construction, frequently do). They're also largely being outplayed by St Louis. Not sure they're the best example here.

 

I disagree. Markov is basically done. Hutton's not ready for a permanent top 4 role and neither is Tryamkin. Tanev IMO would already be better off on a 2nd pair. That rubber band D would get exposed and exploited quickly and regularly. Tank.

 

We can already afford Okposo.

[canuckledraggin]

I see so many fans of the Oiler's style tank lately. If you think that getting rid of Tanev and/or Edler is going to solve the woes on defense you're sorrily mistaken. We got extremely lucky this year to get Hutton and Tryamkin in 1 season. It takes the pressure from needing to take a D-man in the 1st round to seeing what drops to us in the 2nd round and taking Tkachuk or PLD. 

 

Edler won't waive. It's a no-brainer for him. He loves the city and he has a chance to grow with a young team that he can identify with. Do you really want to trade the guy away before he realizes his potential? 

 

Why would you trade Tanev? His value is based on the things that he does well... an active stick, an outlet pass and shot blocking ability. Those aren't intangibles. 

 

I hope that they're lowballing Hamhuis down to 2.5, because I think that he has enough to offer this group.

 

Hutton and Tryamkin changed our whole approach to this years draft.

 

Tkachuk/PLD  and  Clague/Johansen 

 

Don't worry. Be happy!

 

 

[Top_Shelf]

14 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Defence by committee.  Canucks won't be cup favourites but we'd still be competitive.  Again 1 or 2 years of development where Hutton or Try or Sergachev can work into that role.  It would give them the best opportunity to get meaningful NHL minutes and learn.  Look at the Stars right now Goligoski and Klingberg are their top pairing which is small with little grit and stars seem to be ok.  And with the size we'd have between Sbisa, Tryamkin and Pedan i wouldn't be to worried about needing size from the back end.

 

 Realistically removing Edler with the addition of Markov, with Hutton + Tryamkin taking on a bigger roles our D doesn't all of the sudden get tank worthy.

 

Also not signing a big UFA or trading for a expensive top 2 D, Canucks would have money to spend upfront on a player like Okposo.  

You're putting on too much expectations,  how about we see how Tryamkin plays a full season or two  before slotting him in the top 4 pairing. He is just getting his feet wet in the NHL. Sergachev is going to need more than 2 years to be considered top 4. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I'd prefer we not thrust Hutton in to a top 4 role before we have to personally. I'm also not convinced he's top pair even in his prime ideally.

 

Try and and especially Sergachev are likely to need a HELL of a lot more than 1-2 years to be even considered top 4 ready IMO.

 

D isn't exactly Dallas strength. They need to outscore their opponents to win (and with their construction, frequently do). They're also largely being outplayed by St Louis. Not sure they're the best example here.

 

I disagree. Markov is basically done. Hutton's not ready for a permanent top 4 role and neither is Tryamkin. Tanev IMO would already be better off on a 2nd pair. That rubber band D would get exposed and exploited quickly and regularly. Tank.

 

We can already afford Okposo.

So basically you're saying:

Edler Tanev

Hutton Sbisa

Tryamkin Larsen

Pedan Beiga

 

= Not tanking and us being competitive

 

while:

Hamhuis Tanev

Hutton Sbisa

Markov Tryamkin

Pedan Larsen

 

= Tanking

 

I disagree, in fact i'd argue that we have greater D depth in the second option while have adding a significant piece to our D prospect pool. And considering Elder averaged only 66 game pace seasons over the last 6 years i'd take the combination of Hamhuis + Markov over Edler for one year while we develop our youth.  I do see Hutton as a top pairing D in the future, in his last 29 games he averaged over 23 minutes and that's as a 22 year old rookie D.  That's exactly why we need a stop gap and not a replacement. Especially considering Elder isn't much of a mentor while the other two are.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

9 minutes ago, Top_Shelf said:

You're putting on too much expectations,  how about we see how Tryamkin plays a full season or two  before slotting him in the top 4 pairing. He is just getting his feet wet in the NHL. Sergachev is going to need more than 2 years to be considered top 4. 

He doesn't have to be a top 4.  Don't get too caught up on the combinations, has D pairings ever stayed exactly the same throughout the entire year. Switch Sbisa and Markov around with Hutton a Tree makes no difference.  For the most part D by committee means we'd role 3 pairings giving all D fairly evenly minutes.

 

Hamhuis Tanev 22 min

Markov Sbisa 20 min

Hutton Tryamkin 18 min

 

 

[Noseforthenet]

3 hours ago, ice orca said:

If Edmonton takes Tkachuk you take Dubois.

Yup pretty much this. As far as I'm concerned, it's almost Dubois or bust at this point. Not all that interestedin Tkachuk. Especially with the team needs.

[canuckledraggin]

6 minutes ago, Top_Shelf said:

You're putting on too much expectations,  how about we see how Tryamkin plays a full season or two  before slotting him in the top 4 pairing. He is just getting his feet wet in the NHL. Sergachev is going to need more than 2 years to be considered top 4. 

Nah. Let's just throw his feet to the fire and see how he turns out. The 10 games that Tryamkin played were a revelation. While everyone was saying lets temper expectations, Tryamkin went out and proved why he belongs in the NHL. He has an active stick and he was stealing pucks left and right. He has a hard shot, which wasn't a surprise to those that have seen him play. He is a big body who can get in the way of goaltenders on the powerplay a la Byufuglien. When the goons of Anaheim got a bit crazy, Tryamkin shoved them and all of a sudden he had 6 feet of space between them. That same California road trip had San Jose fans ooo'ing and aaaah'ing over just watching the kid. 

 

Hutton and Tryamkin is a revelation for this team. Is it a coincidence that Hutton is in Russia right now and gaining valuable knowledge of  the customs and phrases that could lead him to be a better teammate?

 

Yep it's a coincidence 100%. But it's definitely a happy accident. 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

So basically you're saying:

Edler Tanev

Hutton Sbisa

Tryamkin Larsen

Pedan Beiga

 

= Not tanking and us being competitive

 

while:

Hamhuis Tanev

Hutton Sbisa

Markov Tryamkin

Pedan Larsen

 

= Tanking

 

I disagree, in fact i'd argue that we have greater D depth in the second option while have adding a significant piece to our D prospect pool. And considering Elder averaged only 66 game pace seasons over the last 6 years i'd take the combination of Hamhuis + Markov over Edler for one year while we develop our youth.  I do see Hutton as a top pairing D in the future, in his last 29 games he averaged over 23 minutes and that's as a 22 year old rookie D.  That's exactly why we need a stop gap and not a replacement. Especially considering Elder isn't much of a mentor while the other two are.

Nope, even our current core needs some work to be considered even remotely 'competitive'. And that by no means equals 'contender'. 

 

I'd prefer we simply try to add temporary top 4 depth as you stated and continue to draft and develop below that. 

 

If we can make a separate trade on top of that for some younger, quality D like Severson, Gudbranson etc, by all means...

 

If we can make a logical move for other prospects/picks, by all means...

 

But I don't see this management purposely making the weakest part  of our roster, weaker. 

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

30 minutes ago, canuckledraggin said:

Nah. Let's just throw his feet to the fire and see how he turns out. The 10 games that Tryamkin played were a revelation. While everyone was saying lets temper expectations, Tryamkin went out and proved why he belongs in the NHL. He has an active stick and he was stealing pucks left and right. He has a hard shot, which wasn't a surprise to those that have seen him play. He is a big body who can get in the way of goaltenders on the powerplay a la Byufuglien. When the goons of Anaheim got a bit crazy, Tryamkin shoved them and all of a sudden he had 6 feet of space between them. That same California road trip had San Jose fans ooo'ing and aaaah'ing over just watching the kid. 

 

Hutton and Tryamkin is a revelation for this team. Is it a coincidence that Hutton is in Russia right now and gaining valuable knowledge of  the customs and phrases that could lead him to be a better teammate?

 

Yep it's a coincidence 100%. But it's definitely a happy accident. 

I'm a huge Tryamkin fan as well.  I think Hutton and Tryamkin have made a pitiful defence look hopeful.  I'm all for Tkachuk or Dubois at #5.  It's a no lose situation.

[Blömqvist]

The best proposal I've seen from someone was (sorry, I can't remember who it was)...

 

NJD: 5th overall pick and Sbisa

VAN: 11th overall pick and Severson

 

If we could grab the 4th overall from Edmonton for Tanev and a couple of other pieces then I would be all over that proposed VAN-NJD deal. We could walk away from the draft with a potential #1 centre and two potential #2/#3 defensemen by drafting one of Sergachev or Bean at 11.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Nope, even our current core needs some work to be considered even remotely 'competitive'. And that by no means equals 'contender'. 

 

I'd prefer we simply try to add temporary top 4 depth as you stated and continue to draft and develop below that. 

 

If we can make a separate trade on top of that for some younger, quality D like Severson, Gudbranson etc, by all means...

 

If we can make a logical move for other prospects/picks, by all means...

 

But I don't see this management purposely making the weakest pay off our roster, weaker. 

I don't see mgmt doing anything to our current D core besides maybe looking as resigning hammher.  We don't have enough open spots to add without subtractions.  We have too many players are on the brink that we can't just give up on.  And we don't have many assets to go out and trade a for a player to be a stop gap until one of our young players can take over..

 

Were realistically looking at:

Edler Tanev

Hutton Sbisa

Tryamkin Larsen

Pedan Beiga

 

The majority of D good cores are built from within, from drafting.  Canucks need to set ourself up so we can do the same. Severson and Gudbranson are solid top 4 D options, but neither solve a need for a top pairing D to replace Edler. I would gladly go 2-3 years of D by committee so that we can construct a strong future core.

 

[Odd.]

29 minutes ago, Blömqvist said:

The best proposal I've seen from someone was (sorry, I can't remember who it was)...

 

NJD: 5th overall pick and Sbisa

VAN: 11th overall pick and Severson

 

If we could grab the 4th overall from Edmonton for Tanev and a couple of other pieces then I would be all over that proposed VAN-NJD deal. We could walk away from the draft with a potential #1 centre and two potential #2/#3 defensemen by drafting one of Sergachev or Bean at 11.

I actually like this. We get our top 2 d-man, and we can draft Jost or Keller. If Jost was 2 inches taller and 20 pounds heavier, I think he would be in contention for the 4th/5th overall pick.

But tbh, Dubois all the way.

[DeNiro]

41 minutes ago, Blömqvist said:

The best proposal I've seen from someone was (sorry, I can't remember who it was)...

 

NJD: 5th overall pick and Sbisa

VAN: 11th overall pick and Severson

 

If we could grab the 4th overall from Edmonton for Tanev and a couple of other pieces then I would be all over that proposed VAN-NJD deal. We could walk away from the draft with a potential #1 centre and two potential #2/#3 defensemen by drafting one of Sergachev or Bean at 11.

I don't think Severson has that much value. Take out Sbisa and have it be the 5th for 11th and Severson. If the Devils are eager to move up they can pay a premium.

 

I would still hate that deal though. Simply because of the fact that Severson was taken 3 spots after we took Mallet in 2012.

 

 

[theminister]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

I don't think Severson has that much value. Take out Sbisa and have it be the 5th for 11th and Severson. If the Devils are eager to move up they can pay a premium.

 

I would still hate that deal though. Simply because of the fact that Severson was taken 3 spots after we took Mallet in 2012.

 

 

I says...pardon?

 

He's a sure fire rugged, two-way top 4 defence man who is only 22. 

 

He's also got letter potential. You win with players like him.