Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

[rumor] benning wants reinhart

GM PLACE ROCKS

Recommended Posts

Ryan Strome Canucks All-Star

Ryan Strome

Posted
Posted

Cdc is hilarious if you look at the proposal forum you see that every team should trade there most coveted prospects for canuck spare parts but you mention that other teams want quality prospects(Horvat) and omg watch out lol

Not saying its a good deal just find the irony hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
70seven Canucks Regular

70seven

Posted
Posted

Not sure why everyone is proposing prospects.... if Fla wanted a good prospect, theyd just pick ekblad, whos projected to play next year anyways.

they want established help in addition to a high replacement pick not horvat, jensen, shinkaruk, etc....

we basically have Burrows, Hansen, Garrison, Booth, and Tanev to offer.

Burr and JGar have NTCs so our options are pretty limited. Thus we're likely going to have to either convince Garrison, or it's almost a certainty that Tanev will be a part of the deal. And thats a tough deal to make, considering whom might still be available at 6.

Also it doesnt sound like scouts are expecting Nylander to slip past 6. He's just too talented. Youve got to wonder what kind of year he wouldve had playing in Junior. It's probable he wouldve been closer to a top 3 pick if he had played vs his own age group and put up the gaudy numbers like Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForsbergTheGreat Canucks Franchise Player

ForsbergTheGreat

Posted
Posted

Not sure why everyone is proposing prospects.... if Fla wanted a good prospect, theyd just pick ekblad, whos projected to play next year anyways.

they want established help in addition to a high replacement pick not horvat, jensen, shinkaruk, etc....

we basically have Burrows, Hansen, Garrison, Booth, and Tanev to offer.

Burr and JGar have NTCs so our options are pretty limited. Thus we're likely going to have to either convince Garrison, or it's almost a certainty that Tanev will be a part of the deal. And thats a tough deal to make, considering whom might still be available at 6.

Also it doesnt sound like scouts are expecting Nylander to slip past 6. He's just too talented. Youve got to wonder what kind of year he wouldve had playing in Junior. It's probable he wouldve been closer to a top 3 pick if he had played vs his own age group and put up the gaudy numbers like Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett, etc...

People will read this and understand the logic behind it, then continue to discuss trading prospects. It was mentioned on page 4 that FLA needs to win now and not wait for prospects to come up yet were are now on page 9 and people are still ordering up Gaunce and Horvat as main pieces.

ill take a stab at it

Jensen + 6th + 36th + Labate for 1st overall and 61st

draft reinhart

Kesler + 66th for Etem + 10th + theadore

draft Fleury

I'd be over the moon with that

See...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baka Canucks First-Line

Baka

Posted
Posted

Many people seem to be losing their minds over the idea of Horvat and the 6th for the #2. Or the #1 even for some of you.

For some perspective here are some of the past drafts players taken at these perspective prospects spots. Yes, I know Horvat and the 6th are in different years but for the sake of making this simple I am just listed all in each draft where each of the players have had enough time to develop.

2008

#6: Nikita Filatov

#9: Josh Bailey

#1: Steven Stamkos

#2: Drew Doughty

2007

#6: Sam Gagner

#9: Logan Couture

#1: Patrick Kane

#2: JVR

2006

#6: Derick Brassard

#9: James Sheppard

#1: Erik Johnson

#2: Jordan Staal

2005

#6: Gilbert Brule

#9: Brian Lee

#1: Sidney Crosby

#2: Bobby Ryan

2004

#6: Al Montoya

#9: Ladislav Smid

#1: Alex Ovechkin

#2: Evgeni Malkin

2003

#6: Milan Michalek

#9: Dion Phaneuf

#1: MAF

#2: Eric Staal

Obviously it is not perfect as sometimes later picks surpass potential and some early picks can simply dip in potential but when you look at it as a whole... How many years in hindsight does the #6 and #9 picks outshine only 1 of the top 2 picks?

Horvat is a good prospect and should not be thrown away but people are getting far to emotionally attached to him. He hasn't even played a single game at any pro level. All players taken in this range look good early on. But many of them bust or never become stars or simply never live up to the level of the top picks.

Even if you still don't want to move Horvat and the 6th for the 1st or 2nd pick that's fine but it should at least give your mind some thought because more often than not the #2 or #1 is the winning side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Warhippy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Warhippy

Posted
Posted

People will read this and understand the logic behind it, then continue to discuss trading prospects. It was mentioned on page 4 that FLA needs to win now and not wait for prospects to come up yet were are now on page 9 and people are still ordering up Gaunce and Horvat as main pieces.

See...

It's endless....

I don't get why people fail to see those endless comments.

Tallon stated he wants to win. He doesn't mind trading down, he is interested in Ehlers and or Kapanen to help Barkov. He wants established NHL players to win now. His needs are on Wing and D.

Quick offer Florida 2 prospects a guy who hasn't played a full season and 3 picks!!!!

Snow stated he HAS to win now. He has to many prospects, he NEEDS established help and would be willing to move a pick and or prospect to increase their competitive level. He has a new arena he has some ugly mistakes to cover up and has his divisional up the road rival smiling over the possibility that their divisional rival might have just given them the next Crosby if they fail.

He needs Rh D, LH D worth the name he needs solid wingers and a bona fide bottom 6 player that can move through the bottom 9 while playing the PK.

So people offer him endless prospects and yet even more picks in proposals.

Seriously people. When a GM is stating that they will move the pick and or prospects to start competing now it means they don't want more prospects or picks. When a team has 7 solid centers they don't want another center. When they need D and wingers they need D and wingers...

It baffles me how people fail to realize this, yet in another thread will say straight up that prospect X is worth 10X the amount to that team than we could get in a Kesler trade....

There is no logic anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryan Strome Canucks All-Star

Ryan Strome

Posted
Posted

Many people seem to be losing their minds over the idea of Horvat and the 6th for the #2. Or the #1 even for some of you.

For some perspective here are some of the past drafts players taken at these perspective prospects spots. Yes, I know Horvat and the 6th are in different years but for the sake of making this simple I am just listed all in each draft where each of the players have had enough time to develop.

2008

#6: Nikita Filatov

#9: Josh Bailey

#1: Steven Stamkos

#2: Drew Doughty

2007

#6: Sam Gagner

#9: Logan Couture

#1: Patrick Kane

#2: JVR

2006

#6: Derick Brassard

#9: James Sheppard

#1: Erik Johnson

#2: Jordan Staal

2005

#6: Gilbert Brule

#9: Brian Lee

#1: Sidney Crosby

#2: Bobby Ryan

2004

#6: Al Montoya

#9: Ladislav Smid

#1: Alex Ovechkin

#2: Evgeni Malkin

2003

#6: Milan Michalek

#9: Dion Phaneuf

#1: MAF

#2: Eric Staal

Obviously it is not perfect as sometimes later picks surpass potential and some early picks can simply dip in potential but when you look at it as a whole... How many years in hindsight does the #6 and #9 picks outshine only 1 of the top 2 picks?

Horvat is a good prospect and should not be thrown away but people are getting far to emotionally attached to him. He hasn't even played a single game at any pro level. All players taken in this range look good early on. But many of them bust or never become stars or simply never live up to the level of the top picks.

Even if you still don't want to move Horvat and the 6th for the 1st or 2nd pick that's fine but it should at least give your mind some thought because more often than not the #2 or #1 is the winning side.

Very interesting post. Really a eye opener tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdatb Canucks Third-Line

jdatb

Posted
Posted

Many people seem to be losing their minds over the idea of Horvat and the 6th for the #2. Or the #1 even for some of you.

For some perspective here are some of the past drafts players taken at these perspective prospects spots. Yes, I know Horvat and the 6th are in different years but for the sake of making this simple I am just listed all in each draft where each of the players have had enough time to develop.

2008

#6: Nikita Filatov

#9: Josh Bailey

#1: Steven Stamkos

#2: Drew Doughty

2007

#6: Sam Gagner

#9: Logan Couture

#1: Patrick Kane

#2: JVR

2006

#6: Derick Brassard

#9: James Sheppard

#1: Erik Johnson

#2: Jordan Staal

2005

#6: Gilbert Brule

#9: Brian Lee

#1: Sidney Crosby

#2: Bobby Ryan

2004

#6: Al Montoya

#9: Ladislav Smid

#1: Alex Ovechkin

#2: Evgeni Malkin

2003

#6: Milan Michalek

#9: Dion Phaneuf

#1: MAF

#2: Eric Staal

Obviously it is not perfect as sometimes later picks surpass potential and some early picks can simply dip in potential but when you look at it as a whole... How many years in hindsight does the #6 and #9 picks outshine only 1 of the top 2 picks?

Horvat is a good prospect and should not be thrown away but people are getting far to emotionally attached to him. He hasn't even played a single game at any pro level. All players taken in this range look good early on. But many of them bust or never become stars or simply never live up to the level of the top picks.

Even if you still don't want to move Horvat and the 6th for the 1st or 2nd pick that's fine but it should at least give your mind some thought because more often than not the #2 or #1 is the winning side.

Flawed logic IMO. Horvat was taken 9th in a pretty deep draft. I'm sure he'd be top-6 in this draft. Besides, I don't think the talent different between Reinhart/Ekblad and Draisaitl/Nylander is very significant. I'd much rather stash Horvat and the 6th than try to move up to #1/2. Now if we could somehow get #1 without giving up Horvat, Shink, or the 6th...drool

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baka Canucks First-Line

Baka

Posted
Posted

Flawed logic IMO. Horvat was taken 9th in a pretty deep draft. I'm sure he'd be top-6 in this draft. Besides, I don't think the talent different between Reinhart/Ekblad and Draisaitl/Nylander is very significant. I'd much rather stash Horvat and the 6th than try to move up to #1/2. Now if we could somehow get #1 without giving up Horvat, Shink, or the 6th...drool

That can be said for any draft class, "If _____ player was drafted in _____ year that player would have been taken higher or lower." However keep in mind Horvat was not even projected as a top 10 pick. Most mock drafts and ranks had him around 12. The lowest I saw was him at 15. Even so his listed potential is still a two way 2C at best or a 3C at worst. Nice but nothing exactly amazing.

Even so you cannot truly rank a draft class until the players are given time to develop. For example the 2007 NHL draft was considered one of the more shallow lackluster drafts in recent years at the time but in hindsight it was pretty good. (P. Kane, JVR, Turris, Subban, McDonagh, Couture, Voracek, Shattenkirk, Simmonds, etc.) And as far as deep drafts go look at 2003 the deepest draft. How do you compare Michalek and Phanuef to those top 2 picks in all those inferior draft classes?

Your side of the debate is based entirely on scouting reports and what they say a player might be. But what I am saying is 2014 is no different than any other year (or 2013 for that matter). Just like all those past years many of those players will not live up to that scouting report while the top picks continue to be far more reliable.

But I don't see how my logic is flawed I did not cherry pick years I went in order. I am using logic based on year after year of draft classes. I can add a few more

2010 is probably the highest you can squeeze out before it gets really raw.

2010

#6: Brent Connoly

#9: Mikael Granlund

#1: Taylor Hall

#2: Tyler Seguin

2009

#6: Oliver Ekman-Larsson

#9: Jared Cowen

#1: John Tavares

#2: Victor Hedman

Skip ahead past what I already listed...

2002

#6: Scottie Upshall

#9: Petr Taticek

#1: Rick Nash

#2: Kari Lethonen (Jay Bouwmeester was next if you want to skip the goalie and only look at skaters)

2001

#6: Mikko Koivu

#9: Tuomo Ruutu

#1: Ilya Kovalchuk

#2: Jason Spezza

2000

#6: Scott Hartnell

#9: Nikita Alexeev

#1: Rick Dipietro (Add Marian Gaborik who was the #3 pick if you want to overlook goalies again)

#2: Dany Heatley

1999

#6: Brian Finley (Kris Beech went #7 if you want to overlook goalies again)

#9: Jamie Lundmark

#1: Patrick Stefan

#2: Daniel Sedin

1998

#6: Rico Fata

#9: Michael Rupp

#1: Vincent Lecavalier

#2: David Legwand

I feel it's more illogical to assume 2013 and 2014, 2 years loaded with prospects who have not even seen AHL ice will suddenly defy past odds from drafts all the way back to 1998 (could keep going it doesn't get any prettier in 1997.

Sure everyone would like to keep Horvat but realistically a top 2 pick will only come with giving up the best of your talent. But according to the drafts you are far more likely to gain much more than you loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elvis15 Canucks Hall-of-Famer

elvis15

Posted
Posted

Just spitballing, but what if we could go all in with this draft?

Garrison, 6th

for

1st

Kesler

for

Vatanen, 10th, 24th

10th, Shinkaruk, Tanev

for

2nd, Grigorenko

Draft:

Reinhart

Ekblad

Burrows Sedin Jensen

Sedin Santorelli Kassian

Higgins Horvat Matthias

Sestito Richardson Lain

Archibald Schroeder

Hamhuis Bieksa

Edler Vatanen

Stanton Corrado

Weber

Lack

Markstrom

Ekblad and Reinhart get another year in junior unless they really impress. If they did make it:

Burrows Sedin Jensen

Sedin Reinhart Kassian

Higgins Horvat Santorelli

Matthias Richardson Lain

Sestito Schroeder

Hamhuis Ekblad

Edler Vatanen

Stanton Bieksa

Weber/Corrado

EDIT: changing around the Buffalo deal. Hard finding an obvious fit there, maybe it's better adjusted from Hansen to Shinkaruk since their weak on left wing (especially if they buy out Leino) but then we get Grigorenko back on top of the pick.

That changes around the lineup a bit, but we could look at trading Hansen still, or not re-sign Santorelli or a similar move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blömqvist Canucks Regular

Blömqvist

Posted
Posted

I highly doubt just Garrison and the 6th would work. It seems way too much of an underpayment, in my opinion. I think a more accurate offer in value would be Garrison, Jensen, and the 6th overall pick for the 1st overall pick and a cap dump, and that might not be enough with the rumoured Toronto offer.

Florida gets a "win now" trade with a top 4 defenseman who's played on their team before and a current top 9 winger with the potential to be a top 6 winger, while at the same time getting the 6th overall pick to select an elite offensive player for the future. Guys like Horvat and Gaunce are still a few years away from being NHL ready, whereas Jensen already has some seasoning in a professional setting. They already have two big centres in Barkov and Bjugstad, so filling in the wings would likely be their goal.

IMO a pretty good deal for Florida, but does it outshine Toronto's rumoured offer of Phaneuf, Kadri, and the 8th? The 8th might be too low of a pick to guarantee Nylander/Ehlers but Kapanen should be left on the board then.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...