DeNiro Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 We do have a pretty sad farm thats why we can't be giving away our first round picks for ?????. We're not giving away a first round pick. We'd be upgrading a 6th to a 1st and trading one prospect. One prospect that can be replaced in the Kesler trade. Stockpiling prospects doesn't guarantee us anything if they're all average prospects. At some point we need elite players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 We know that Florida did not bother to interview Ekblad, Reinhart or Bennett the supposed top 3 players in this years draft and instead targeted Ehlers, Nylander and Virtanen. Florida has no interest in those top 3 picks if they were truly as good as what you think they would not be completely ignoring them. And to say that well Florida already has centres well you're talking as if Reinhart is better than Barkov and Bjugstad so then why isn't Tallon shopping them? It's pretty clear that Tallon thinks the top 3 are not that great and wants to move down the draft and select someone who's just as good while fleecing some team. And who made Tallon the expert? What if he's horribly wrong? So if Tallon thinks the top 3 this year isn't great, does that mean the top 3 actually isn't? No. Plenty of teams trying to move up should tell you that isn't the case. It's actually because Tallon already has a great core of young players (Huberdeau, Barkov, Gudbranson, Kulikov), and adding Reinhart/Ekblad might be redundant, so he wants to add supporting role players. This is an underrated draft. Tallon moving down means he already has those franchise pieces and want to add supporting role players, not that the top 3 are not franchise players. People keep bringing up 2015 - if Tallon had that #1 pick, he'd hold onto it. Yeah, because McDavid is supposed to be the next big thing since Crosby. But then he'd trade away a Huberdeau, or a Barkov, to make room, and either of those are good enough to be franchise centers (just like Reinhart is). It's not a shame to not be the best thing since Crosby, and it doesn't mean that that player isn't going to be something special. This year getting overshadowed by being stuck between MacKinnon and McDavid might be the perfect storm for a lucky team to move up and snatch a franchise player at #1, which hasn't been traded since 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Tallon doesn't want to become the Oilers. He realizes he needs vets in his lineup if they want to compete. Which is why he sees an opportunity to get those players with his first overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 We're not giving away a first round pick. We'd be upgrading a 6th to a 1st and trading one prospect. One prospect that can be replaced in the Kesler trade. Stockpiling prospects doesn't guarantee us anything if they're all average prospects. At some point we need elite players. Shinkaruk was a first round pick in a deep draft and was rated to go as high as 6th overall. We completely lucked out to get him at 24th: Shinkaruk: Craig Button: No. 14 | NHL CS: No. 6 NAS | ISS: No. 13 | The Hockey News: No. 23 | McKeen's: No. 22 Horvat: Craig Button: No. 19 | NHL CS: No. 15 NAS | ISS: No. 10 | The Hockey News: No. 16 | McKeen's: No. 14 Giving up Shinkaruk to pick first overall and then saying we can replace him in a weak draft with a high draft pick is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 We don't plan on having another bad season and getting a high pick. No matter how deep next year's draft is, the player available where we pick (likely late teens/early twenties) is not going to be Reinhart's calibre. Draisaitl will never fall to #6, and Nylander is high-risk high-reward, but with Reinhart what you see is what you get - and that's what you pay up for. It's not going to be over night. I agree. We're going to have years to build the team - that's years of drafting. So how is packaging some good prospects for one great franchise prospect going to damage us? We can add to the core we build over the next few years through the draft. I really do think this is our shot. I guess that's our difference. I don't see us picking this low again. To me this is like when we picked up the Sedins. Reinhart, Horvat, Gaunce, Cassels. Add to them through trades, drafting and FA signings. It's not overnight, so to deplete it temporarily to get Reinhart isn't so far fetched - we can make up most of it by trading Ryan Kesler. I guess this is where we disagree, I don't see Reinhart as a franchise player, you do, I don't really see him (upside wise) as alot better than Bennett, or even Draisaitl. I think there is a chance Draisaitl could even become the best forward in this draft class, he more of a risk perhaps, but his ceiling could be the highest of the 3. As an alternate senario, if Burkie really like Virtanen/Ritchie, I would look at trying to make a deal to move up to #4. One of those 3 players will be there forsure, and we could get which ever one is, then we have our future #1C, and it wouldn't cost as much. Its not so much that I'm against trading up to get a center, I just don't want to deplete our depth & deal important assets away to do it, and since I don't view Reinhart as a true franchise player, I'm not willing to pay as much as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I guess this is where we disagree, I don't see Reinhart as a franchise player, you do, I don't really see him (upside wise) as alot better than Bennett, or even Draisaitl. I think there is a chance Draisaitl could even become the best forward in this draft class, he more of a risk perhaps, but his ceiling could be the highest of the 3. As an alternate senario, if Burkie really like Virtanen/Ritchie, I would look at trying to make a deal to move up to #4. One of those 3 players will be there forsure, and we could get which ever one is, then we have our future #1C, and it wouldn't cost as much. Its not so much that I'm against trading up to get a center, I just don't want to deplete our depth & deal important assets away to do it, and since I don't view Reinhart as a true franchise player, I'm not willing to pay as much as you. Fair enough. It's not that I don't understand your logic. It makes sense haha. I guess different valuation of Reinhart is where we diverge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Shinkaruk was a first round pick in a deep draft and was rated to go as high as 6th overall. We completely lucked out to get him at 24th: Shinkaruk: Craig Button: No. 14 | NHL CS: No. 6 NAS | ISS: No. 13 | The Hockey News: No. 23 | McKeen's: No. 22 Horvat: Craig Button: No. 19 | NHL CS: No. 15 NAS | ISS: No. 10 | The Hockey News: No. 16 | McKeen's: No. 14 Giving up Shinkaruk to pick first overall and then saying we can replace him in a weak draft with a high draft pick is nonsense. And Schroeder was projected to go top 15. It means nothing until the player performs at the NHL level. The fact that 18 teams passed on him before he got to us means there's some issues there. If Etem is on the table from Anaheim, that's automatically a replacement for Shinkaruk. He's probably even a better player. People are latching onto this "weak draft" idea. The truth is there's good players that can be had in every draft. And often the draft looks alot better a couple years after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 And who made Tallon the expert? What if he's horribly wrong? So if Tallon thinks the top 3 this year isn't great, does that mean the top 3 actually isn't? No. Plenty of teams trying to move up should tell you that isn't the case. It's actually because Tallon already has a great core of young players (Huberdeau, Barkov, Gudbranson, Kulikov), and adding Reinhart/Ekblad might be redundant, so he wants to add supporting role players. This is an underrated draft. Tallon moving down means he already has those franchise pieces and want to add supporting role players, not that the top 3 are not franchise players. People keep bringing up 2015 - if Tallon had that #1 pick, he'd hold onto it. Yeah, because McDavid is supposed to be the next big thing since Crosby. But then he'd trade away a Huberdeau, or a Barkov, to make room, and either of those are good enough to be franchise centers (just like Reinhart is). It's not a shame to not be the best thing since Crosby, and it doesn't mean that that player isn't going to be something special. This year getting overshadowed by being stuck between MacKinnon and McDavid might be the perfect storm for a lucky team to move up and snatch a franchise player at #1, which hasn't been traded since 2003. Its not just Tallon I posted an articled earlier of the Buffalo GM saying how the top players 7 players in this draft are all pretty close, here is the paragraph "There are some good players at the top, but there's no Crosby or Tavares," Devine said. "Maybe the draft tapers off a little bit after the top six or seven. The guys in the five to 20 range are probably as strong as we've seen in that range in the past, but there's no one player this year that really jumps out as the No. 1 guy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Fair enough. It's not that I don't understand your logic. It makes sense haha. I guess different valuation of Reinhart is where we diverge. What do you think of the Calgary idea, I think that would be a good route to look at, it certainly would be nice to add a center with true #1C potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Its not just Tallon I posted an articled earlier of the Buffalo GM saying how the top players 7 players in this draft are all pretty close, here is the paragraph "There are some good players at the top, but there's no Crosby or Tavares," Devine said. "Maybe the draft tapers off a little bit after the top six or seven. The guys in the five to 20 range are probably as strong as we've seen in that range in the past, but there's no one player this year that really jumps out as the No. 1 guy." Yea we know there isn't a Crosby and there are good talents in the top 7, but the top 3 of Reinhart, Bennett and Ekblad separate themselves from the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 And Schroeder was projected to go top 15. It means nothing until the player performs at the NHL level. The fact that 18 teams passed on him before he got to us means there's some issues there. If Etem is on the table from Anaheim, that's automatically a replacement for Shinkaruk. He's probably even a better player. People are latching onto this "weak draft" idea. The truth is there's good players that can be had in every draft. And often the draft looks alot better a couple years after the fact. I've said before to you and posted a paragraph above that backs up what I'm saying that weak means there is no guaranteed franchise player. Giving up first round picks from a deep draft to trade for a player that is not going to be a guaranteed first line star is just stupid especially when we don't have the farm to gamble our picks like that. We are much better off keep our prospects and drafting at the 6th position. The more first round picks we have the better our odds of getting that franchise player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yea we know there isn't a Crosby and there are good talents in the top 7, but the top 3 of Reinhart, Bennett and Ekblad separate themselves from the others. Not really the only one who has semi separated themselves from the pack is Ekblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 What do you think of the Calgary idea, I think that would be a good route to look at, it certainly would be nice to add a center with true #1C potential. I think I would try Edmonton first because that gives us a chance at one of the Sams. See what their price is first. The Calgary trade gets us Draisaitl IMO, which is pretty good too. If it doesn't cost us a great deal, definitely. 1. Ekblad, 2. Bennett, 3. Reinhart is how I think it pans out if FLA, BUF and EDM stay put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 i still say trade up for the 1st if we have the chance.. whoever we pick up there is going to be better than whatever we pick up with the 6th.. and better than whatever we pick up in the 2015 draft.. ya we ain't tanking.. so we'll prolly hover somewhere for the 10th-15th pick next year.. and i'm sure whoever we get as 1st overall if we can get that pick is >>>>>>>>>>>whatever is available in the 10th-15th pick next year even if it is a deep draft. I don't think majority of you guys will be able to stand being like the lames and stock pile up on average B C+ grades prospect and forever be a bottom feeder for a long long time loading up on players with no game changers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I've said before to you and posted a paragraph above that backs up what I'm saying that weak means there is no guaranteed franchise player. Giving up first round picks from a deep draft to trade for a player that is not going to be a guaranteed first line star is just stupid especially when we don't have the farm to gamble our picks like that. We are much better off keep our prospects and drafting at the 6th position. The more first round picks we have the better our odds of getting that franchise player. Of course there is a franchise player. Every draft for the last 10 years has had a franchise player go 1 or 2. The fact that scouts can't pin down which one it will be doesn't mean they're not there. The reason Reinhart isn't being pumped up by the media is because he's not a flashy player like Tavares, Stamkos, or Mackinnon. Flashy doesn't determine whether they'll be a franchise player or not though. The odds of getting a franchise player at 6th in a so called "weak draft" are better than getting a 1st overall? That doesn't really make sense. I'll take the first overall, because history has shown these are where franchise players are taken more than anywhere else. Playing the odds is probably the best thing Benning can do. He knows Ritchie, Virtanen, and Ehlers are not franchise players, which is why he's trying to move up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Luongo Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 No no no no no no no. Keep the 6th. Shinkaruk will be an absolute stud and he loves being a Canuck. Look at his twitter page, all he does is talk to Canucks prospects and talk about the Canucks. He's the type of guy who will stick with this team for a long time. And he's got plenty of skill to boot. Keep the 6th. Take Ehlers or Nylander, keep shinkaruk.I completely agree. I'm in favour of a couple changes if they're good changes but this definitely wouldn't be one of them. Keep these guys there's no guarantee that the #1 pick will be a better player then a good pick at 6th and giving away a potential great player in Shinkaruk and any roster player never mind a good one would be an idiot move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Of course there is a franchise player. Every draft for the last 10 years has had a franchise player go 1 or 2. The fact that scouts can't pin down which one it will be doesn't mean they're not there. The reason Reinhart isn't being pumped up by the media is because he's not a flashy player like Tavares, Stamkos, or Mackinnon. Flashy doesn't determine whether they'll be a franchise player or not though. The odds of getting a franchise player at 6th in a so called "weak draft" are better than getting a 1st overall? That doesn't really make sense. I'll take the first overall, because history has shown these are where franchise players are taken more than anywhere else. Playing the odds is probably the best thing Benning can do. He knows Ritchie, Virtanen, and Ehlers are not franchise players, which is why he's trying to move up. 2012 - Yakupov, Murray the jury is out on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Isnt it Elliotte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I completely agree. I'm in favour of a couple changes if they're good changes but this definitely wouldn't be one of them. Keep these guys there's no guarantee that the #1 pick will be a better player then a good pick at 6th. Reinhart is not really the consensus #1...Ekblad is....I think Benning sees something in Reinhart that the Canucks need (I agree)...Although if we do wind up with our # 6,it's not the worst case scenario...From all I've read about,I would realistically put the Canucks chances of landing the #1 at about 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckster33 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Shinkaruk and or Tanev and or Jensen and or Kassian WILL NOT be moved in any deal to move up. I Guarantee it. Firstly CDC needs to learn this is not NHL 14 . Linden and Benning are not all horned up so they can say we got first! We got first! Look ma we got first! Do I get a ribbon now?!!! They will make a trade if it makes sense. And making sense is not trading your best prospects for another prospect, especially when you don't have many high end prospects. These men understand drafting is a crap shoot so you don't concentrate more risk by removing your diversification! Simple. Finally .. As I said I guarantee it and I know this for A FACT. I cannot say where I got it from and I am sure the adolescents here will say don't say it didn't happen / no source. And well ya I'm not here to play who's in grade seven either I guarantee what I just said is a FACT from a source that would KNOW for a fact that this is the case. After draft day I will tell all the trolls who bark at me after this post, that I told you so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.