[Discussion] Would you trade up to get Rasmussen?

[iceman64]

If He does go up as high in the draft as projected (at #4) and we were in 5 position, would you tradeup if your Benning?  (i would but that's me)

 

Scouted as follows and at 6'5 we need this in the west! and more please

 

Large competitive centreman with skill and good feet. A gritty,naturally strong player with mobility who wins most board scrums, he is a dominant player in the front and below the goal line. A mobile skater who is difficult to contain or move. He wins puck battles and scores. Intriguing prospect with upside offensively, difficult to contain, and effective vision and passing skills. Owns the front of the power play. Owns the area behind the goal line. He might look for the pass over shooting, Protects the biscuit well. Has an upright skating stride but gets there and shows jam when he greets you.He Is an effective two way centre, and rarely loses puck battles along the boards. The combination of power and skill is at the high end of this draft class, even though you might hope he would show a bit more effort all sixty minutes. A raw talent who may end up being the best player out of the West.

 

Thoughts?

[Caknuckle Puck]

wrong section brooooo

[Rush17]

Al though his size is inciting. We are seeing a trend in the league of speed and skill.  The size that we would be arming up to face against would likely be phased out by the time were decent.  Having a mix of size and speed is great.  But I have concerns personally on him.  He is a local guy and that is great. But his game seems kind of 1 dimension and he seems to lack offensive play making abilities. (heard button talk on this as well).  He seems to be good at jamming pucks in and potting goals close to the net.

 

Maybe his ceiling is higher then button and I give him credit for.  But I have my reservations.  I would without a doubt pay a ransom for Heisher or Patrick though. 

 

We need that real elite guy to get us excited about. Brock is a great piece but in my eyes we need that legit #1 unquestionable C.  Is that possible in this draft? perhaps.  But Heishier in particular is the guy I want.  Ras may be a great player though. He kind of reminds of a Martin Hanzal but I'm no hockey expert.

[Ghostsof1915]

 

[iceman64]

Just now, Rush17 said:

Al though his size is inciting. We are seeing a trend in the league of speed and skill.  The size that we would be arming up to face against would likely be phased out by the time were decent.  Having a mix of size and speed is great.  But I have concerns personally on him.  He is a local guy and that is great. But his game seems kind of 1 dimension and he seems to lack offensive play making abilities. (heard button talk on this as well).  He seems to be good at jamming pucks in and potting goals close to the net.

 

Maybe his ceiling is higher then button and I give him credit for.  But I have my reservations.  I would without a doubt pay a ransom for Heisher or Patrick though. 

 

We need that real elite guy to get us excited about. Brock is a great piece but in my eyes we need that legit #1 unquestionable C.  Is that possible in this draft? perhaps.  But Heishier in particular is the guy I want.  Ras may be a great player though. He kind of reminds of a Martin Hanzal but I'm no hockey expert.

I agree with you but at 6 foot 5?  I would rather see that come here in stead of an averaged sized, in other words i'd sacrifice a bit that thinking about our division and just getting the puck with his size is enough play making ability because he passes well too

[Baggins]

The problem with these guys with size is you never know if their success in junior is because they use their size against guys as young as 15 or if they actually have the real skill. For many of the physical junior guys with size the skill just doesn't translate to the NHL when playing against mature men who are NHL veterans. Just look at 6'4" Taylor Pyatt. Bernier, although 6', was another physical junior guy to put up numbers until facing men in the NHL. How about 6'3" Kassian? Junior success doesn't always translate to NHL for the big physical guys. I think they're actually a bigger roll of the dice for NHL success than the more average sized junior players.

[Rush17]

17 minutes ago, iceman64 said:

I agree with you but at 6 foot 5?  I would rather see that come here in stead of an averaged sized, in other words i'd sacrifice a bit that thinking about our division and just getting the puck with his size is enough play making ability because he passes well too

Yeah I'm sure he will be a good player.  But will the landscape of our divison look like when we hit our peak?  The SJS/LA teams will be hitting their bottoms and CGY/EDM will be in their primes.  EDM or CGY are not particularly that large outside of Lucic/Maroon on EDM.  I think speed and size has a place in the game but I don't think the pacific division will be as "large" as it has been over the past few years. I suspect LA is going to do some major reconstruction in the off season. Their team has been going through some really down years. Kind of reminds me of our nux team few years back. Holding on trying to make it back in.  They got talent no doubt but they need to change up their roster.  I suspect Carter will be moved along with one of Pearson/the other good young guy.

 

Koptiar, Doughty, and Quick are their "mainstay core". I suspect changes.  Wouldn't be surprised if MTL bounces early if they might be interested in Carter or one of their top 6 guys.

[Twilight Sparkle]

19 minutes ago, Baggins said:

The problem with these guys with size is you never know if their success in junior is because they use their size against guys as young as 15 or if they actually have the real skill. For many of the physical junior guys with size the skill just doesn't translate to the NHL when playing against mature men who are NHL veterans. Just look at 6'4" Taylor Pyatt. Bernier, although 6', was another physical junior guy to put up numbers until facing men in the NHL. How about 6'3" Kassian? Junior success doesn't always translate to NHL for the big physical guys. I think they're actually a bigger roll of the dice for NHL success than the more average sized junior players.

yea i find the bigger guys are mostly role players than being superstars. i dont like the idea of trading for or drafting guys just because of their size. if mgmt is confident enough in the team's development system, then i'll support whatever they feel they have to do

[BeefcakeBo]

No

[Mathew Barzal]

No thanks,  if we learned anything from Virtanen its that hockey IQ is a mandatory. No Rasmussen. No Tippett. 

[Sweathog]

I'd trade up for Patrick or Vilardi but that's about it. If the Canucks fall down the draft to around 7th Rasmussen will still likely be available. 

[shiznak]

10 minutes ago, Mathew Barzal said:

No thanks,  if we learned anything from Virtanen its that hockey IQ is a mandatory. No Rasmussen. No Tippett. 

Not always.......Patrick White, Cody Hodgson, and Jordan Schroeder......

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

 

Well he's a goal scorer and he has size and so if he falls to us I won't mind. But I wouldn't trade up for him.

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

The problem with these guys with size is you never know if their success in junior is because they use their size against guys as young as 15 or if they actually have the real skill. For many of the physical junior guys with size the skill just doesn't translate to the NHL when playing against mature men who are NHL veterans. Just look at 6'4" Taylor Pyatt. Bernier, although 6', was another physical junior guy to put up numbers until facing men in the NHL. How about 6'3" Kassian? Junior success doesn't always translate to NHL for the big physical guys. I think they're actually a bigger roll of the dice for NHL success than the more average sized junior players.

I hear what you are saying but in all honesty I hardly thought I saw his size used at all in that video unlike for example Jake. It seemed more like good positioning and accurate shooting. My only concern in the video was the goalies  

[PuckYa]

52 minutes ago, Twilight Sparkle said:

yea i find the bigger guys are mostly role players than being superstars. i dont like the idea of trading for or drafting guys just because of their size. if mgmt is confident enough in the team's development system, then i'll support whatever they feel they have to do

Agree but every team needs a balance. We are a little small & lacking grit & muscle in the top 9 especially being in the West. Going up against guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Lucic, Kassian, Maroon, Kopitar, Carter, Tkachuk, Ferlund, Brouwer, Benn, Wheeler, Tarasenko, Thornton, Burns, etc.  shows that size still matters & we definitely need to get a bit bigger up front.

 

Size will always be in the game and a factor in the game. Even the recent up & coming most skilled kids have size to their side. Mathews, Laine, Tkachuk, Monohan, Werenski, Eichel, Horvat, Tryamkin, Rantanen, Kreider, Zibanejad, Wennberg, Coyle, Schieffle, MacKinnon, Drasaitl, Barkov, Vilardi, Patrick, etc.

Hopefully Jake is part of that fixture.

[Canuck Surfer]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

The problem with these guys with size is you never know if their success in junior is because they use their size against guys as young as 15 or if they actually have the real skill. For many of the physical junior guys with size the skill just doesn't translate to the NHL when playing against mature men who are NHL veterans. Just look at 6'4" Taylor Pyatt. Bernier, although 6', was another physical junior guy to put up numbers until facing men in the NHL. How about 6'3" Kassian? Junior success doesn't always translate to NHL for the big physical guys. I think they're actually a bigger roll of the dice for NHL success than the more average sized junior players.

 

He looks to be pretty evasive, deceptive, shifty with the puck and his moves. I think he wins on skill more than size. Allthough he does seem to get a lot of goals in front of the net also. It's not a bad thing?

 

The questions that derailed these other "big" guys;  > Is he quick enough?  Does he battle hard enough? Train & then play hard enough..  

[Hairy Kneel]

If he's there I would take him. (For our PP). Net front presence is what I've been dying to see on our PP esp with wanting to try someone like Try ie unmovable.

Definitely take the best forward available.

 

[swizzey]

We don't need Rasmussen, we already have Megna...

[IBatch]

If he's the best available player and he falls in our lap then yes maybe take him.  No to trading up though.

[flickyoursedin]

In a scenario where Benning trades Tanev to Toronto for their 1rst + and that pick being 15-18th overall and Rasmussen falls to 12 then sure I'd trade for that pick but I have much higher hopes for our 1rst round pick.