mikeyman109 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: On the Tanev point - I don't move Tanev unless it returns a placeholder as a secondary piece 0 or NHL ready principal ie deal him to Tampa - Foote or a 1st and Cirelli - take back Coburn/Koekkoek/Sustr in the deal. The problem with dealing Tanev for a 1st is that 1) you're likely dealing with contenders, and therefore late 1sts that don't begin to compensate you on Tanev's value. I know everyone wants another 1st in the draft - but those spots in the round come with odds that are not worthwhile - 30% ish percent is not good enough to deal your best defenseman - the risk is too high - there needs to be an NHL asset, and imo, in picks alone he's worth considerably more than a late 1st. I agree with the point of getting value back i just think we wont be able to make that kind of deal this year with too much competition. there are other teams that can offer up equally skilled d men to Tanev and getting a 1st round pick anywhere this draft might not be a bad thing. I say if we don't get back at least a first rounder don't trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: On the Tanev point - I don't move Tanev unless it returns a placeholder as a secondary piece 0 or NHL ready principal ie deal him to Tampa - Foote or a 1st and Cirelli - take back Coburn/Koekkoek/Sustr in the deal. The problem with dealing Tanev for a 1st is that 1) you're likely dealing with contenders, and therefore late 1sts that don't begin to compensate you on Tanev's value. I know everyone wants another 1st in the draft - but those spots in the round come with odds that are not worthwhile - 30% ish percent is not good enough to deal your best defenseman - the risk is too high - there needs to be an NHL asset, and imo, in picks alone he's worth considerably more than a late 1st. I've seen you championing this idea a few times now. It would be an interesting prospect for sure. Can the Coburn or NHL caliber d man be a positive mentor for Juolevi is the question. Jim seems pretty firm on wanting to pair Juolevi with Tanman. I'd love too keep that option. Cal Foote and a late first would be a nice return for Gudbranson if they valued him so fondly. I am excited. I hope we see a few deals around our Canucks at the TDL and at the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: I agree old news I was just saying looking at goaltending mid draft isnt a bad idea. My favoritism for N american defense men is known. I dont want to attack anyone's opinion that is different. I think we have drafted enough small forwards and d men in the past decade to see we need to try something different everyone would like more size, grit and pushback in the lineup - however I don't think you let that determine a top 5 pick - you have to take the most talented player. If that happens to be Tkachuk - and he has size and grit as well - great. you can still focus on drafting or signing for size with your other picks, free agents, the trade market etc. I'd love to draft Bouchard as well - and if the team hovers where it is in the standings, that may be who they wind up with - no problem - and perhaps ideally he proves he's the second best D in the draft - but passing on the skillset of a player because he isn't North American or ideal size - not sure that's a great idea. When it comes to NHL NAmerican D - there are some I'd love to have, some I don't care for - and likewise with European or Russians. There's no way I pass on a Hedman or Karlsson because Subban or s available. In the end they are individuals - and there are plenty of relatively 'soft' North Americans. If it's me - I'm trying to bring Zack back, trying to sign Reaves on July 1st, trying to acquire Boone Jenner out of the Torts doghouse - but I'm not making a top 5 pick based on size/grit as the primary factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
189lb enforcers? Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rush17 said: I've seen you championing this idea a few times now. It would be an interesting prospect for sure. Can the Coburn or NHL caliber d man be a positive mentor for Juolevi is the question. Jim seems pretty firm on wanting to pair Juolevi with Tanman. I'd love too keep that option. Cal Foote and a late first would be a nice return for Gudbranson if they valued him so fondly. I am excited. I hope we see a few deals around our Canucks at the TDL and at the draft. Foote is what any team would want. Why take on a Tanev, if he’d cost an arm and a Foote? Nobody is Trading Foote unless we are trading OJ. Same difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 the past lotteries have proven you just need a top 10 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldnews said: everyone would like more size, grit and pushback in the lineup - however I don't think you let that determine a top 5 pick - you have to take the most talented player. you can still focus on drafting or signing for size with your other picks, free agents, the trade market etc. I'd love to draft Bouchard as well - and if the team hovers where it is in the standings, that may be who they wind up with - no problem - and perhaps ideally he proves he's the second best D in the draft - but passing on the skillset of a player because he isn't North American or ideal size - not sure that's a great idea. When it comes to NHL NAmerican D - there are some I'd love to have, some I don't care for - and likewise with European or Russians. There's no way I pass on a Hedman or Karlsson because Subban or s available. In the end they are individuals - and there are plenty of relatively 'soft' North Americans. If it's me - I'm trying to bring Zack back, trying to sign Reaves on July 1st, trying to acquire Boone Jenner out of the Torts doghouse - but I'm not making a top 5 pick based on size/grit as the primary factor. there are exceptions to every rule and in this case id give you Hedman, especially if you look at what he is doing now. remember he is a big big man also. The point about drafting the D is that once they become Norris trophy candidates they never become available any other place. Teams that have them keep them . thus drafting the big boys first. especially on the back end. I would be happy if every pick this year was defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rush17 said: I've seen you championing this idea a few times now. It would be an interesting prospect for sure. Can the Coburn or NHL caliber d man be a positive mentor for Juolevi is the question. Jim seems pretty firm on wanting to pair Juolevi with Tanman. I'd love too keep that option. Cal Foote and a late first would be a nice return for Gudbranson if they valued him so fondly. I am excited. I hope we see a few deals around our Canucks at the TDL and at the draft. I'm not championing anything - I'm not pushing the idea of dealing Tanev - at all - I'm simply pointing out that most of the proposed returns are awful - bad ideas . Dealing Tanev for a late 1st is a serious lowball. No thanks. If he's going to be deal, the return needs to be substantial imo and involve both NHL ready talent and futures - futures alone are over-rated in the end - they're great when they're imagined to be the next all-that - but in reality, those picks turn out at a low percentage. That is a poor gamble. I'm all for keeping Tanev. If anyone wants him, they need to bring the assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Rush17 said: I've seen you championing this idea a few times now. It would be an interesting prospect for sure. Can the Coburn or NHL caliber d man be a positive mentor for Juolevi is the question. Jim seems pretty firm on wanting to pair Juolevi with Tanman. I'd love too keep that option. Cal Foote and a late first would be a nice return for Gudbranson if they valued him so fondly. I am excited. I hope we see a few deals around our Canucks at the TDL and at the draft. No way does Gudbranson fetch a first round and anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: No way does Gudbranson fetch a first round and anything you said the same about Tanev mm109 - I think you'd be surprised - but I doubt we find out because I think - and hope - this team re-signs Gudbranson (good, big, gritty North American defenseman ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, oldnews said: you said the same about Tanev mm109 - I think you'd be surprised - but I doubt we find out because I think - and hope - this team re-signs Gudbranson (good, big, gritty North American defenseman ) if we can keep them both I am in but i still want one of the bigger boys this draft. Id prefer Dahlin of course, but two big boys( Wilde and Bouchard) that can shoot from the point wont hurt our Power play either. and they can skate also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 31 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: No way does Gudbranson fetch a first round and anything You say that. Seems to be rumblings some teams might be interested in paying a late 1st + a mid grade prospect. We shall see.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Rush17 said: You say that. Seems to be rumblings some teams might be interested in paying a late 1st + a mid grade prospect. We shall see.:D if we get a first rounder for him i make that trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Any smart fan would be happy with the losses right now, as long as the kids play and the team tries hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, peaches5 said: the past lotteries have proven you just need a top 10 pick. A guaranteed top five pick is nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Silky mitts said: A guaranteed top five pick is nice Not really. How often does a top 5 pick equal something better than a top 10 pick? You can argue Top 3 but really it becomes a coin toss almost every year outside the top 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, peaches5 said: Not really. How often does a top 5 pick equal something better than a top 10 pick? You can argue Top 3 but really it becomes a coin toss almost every year outside the top 2. Because you get better prospects? Lol we just got EP at five Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, Silky mitts said: Because you get better prospects? Lol we just got EP at five EP has not proven anything. Like I said look back at the history of the draft its a coin toss outside of the top 3 in the majority of NHL drafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluralsight Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said: https://www.tsn.ca/the-year-of-swedish-defencemen-1.852963 http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=265684 Thoughts on Boqvist. Not sure what the hate on Boqvist is, I would have no problem if the Canucks took him with their first pick (unless it was 1st overall). He could be the first true offensive defenseman that this franchise has had since...Paul Reinhart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, peaches5 said: EP has not proven anything. Like I said look back at the history of the draft its a coin toss outside of the top 3 in the majority of NHL drafts. Yeah he’s just the best prospect outside the nhl , and tearing the shl. No biggie , anyways it is a toss up but you get some top end talent in the top 5. It’s up to the gm to make the picks count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Silky mitts said: Yeah he’s just the best prospect outside the nhl , and tearing the shl. No biggie , anyways it is a toss up but you get some top end talent in the top 5. It’s up to the gm to make the picks count. He has to prove he can play in the NHL. There are a lot of players that play great in Europe and then can't convert that to NHL success. That same talent that is available after pick 5 is almost always available in picks 5-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.