What should Nucks do if they get #2 pick in 2016 draft

[nom_de_plume]

1 hour ago, bp79 said:

Is that the best you can come up with? I didn't realize we were being graded for our work. typical cdc. Instead of giving an opinion on my post, you make a pointless grammar comment. Did my few mistakes that were written while half asleep have any detriment to my overall point. I hate to start back and forth word wars but you are a facetious dick its no wonder everyone hates nucks fans. a select few of you remind me of those guys in high school who couldn't get laid  or got ur ass kicked every day. so no you go around pointing out other peoples mistakes, instead of contributing to an actual dialogue   

 

57 minutes ago, bp79 said:

I looked at your recent post. Wow can you write more the 2 consecutive sentences. And whats with the word weird all the time. At least I can write a paragraph with some valid points and insights. you on the other you use about 10 words on average 4 out of the five posts I looked at had weird in them. news flash you are a weird and for 38 you look about 60. weird huh. 

So, why start, then, if you hate it? 

It was just a joke based off an observation, hence the "lol" my friend.  I'm grateful you took the time to read my profile.  Thank you for that. 

Btw, grammar was a little better those two times around.  There is still room for improvement, though.  Keep on it and looking forward.  Good for you sport.

Sincerely,

Professor Nom

[kingofsurrey]

I think a good tank needed to well planned.... We have enough time to get organized.

Move - Miller, Hansen, Burrows, Edler, Hamhuis, at the deadline   -   Bartkowski  once years over. 

Bring up   Gaunce, Pedan  , Shinkaruk   ,Fedun, and  Zalewski

How about Nolan Patrick for 2017 for us.

[Canuck Surfer]

12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That's assuming you think Chychrun is a top flight D man...In my opinion....Top 4? likely.  top end game changer?...i'm not so sure.  

Trade down to 7-8 and take Sergachev would be my answer.  Teams I would be looking to deal with PHX, TO, and CAR as they all have multiple 1st round picks. But would consider a 8+38+prospect for the 2nd overall

Plus one. 

This is a great strategy if,under all circumstances you prioritize D. I personally pick Juolevi at 8. But cant go wrong with Serg.

However...

12 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

There is some merit to your position. Chychrun has lost some ground in the last while, but even so, he's still one of the top d-men available in the draft, and the Canucks do need d-men prospects with upside. I suspect that he will be picked before Sergachev, whether he merits being picked that high or not based on his play of the last while.

 From the limited amount of stuff I've seen in the last while, Sergachev is looking pretty good and I'd be very pleased if he was available when the Canucks turn came up to pick. 

                                    regards,   G.

To me J Puljujarvi is the closest thing we will see to Jagr in our lifetime. Plus he works his arse off, has an incredibly high work rate with dominating size, speed & skills even at a young age.  You just cannot pass that up. I don't trade down. I don't pass go. I say;

PULL IT!!!

Mathews, JP, PL, MT then consideration for Chycrun. If I have the 4th pick, I start considering the trade down philosophy.

[derr12]

Draft tchuck, serious, east side hockey manager had Him as a high end playmaker who's hard to play against. He projects to be an elete, benning type player. 

And if its one thing I learned, its that hockey video games are 100% right 50% of the time.

[CeeBee51]

2 minutes ago, derr12 said:

Draft tchuck, serious, east side hockey manager had Him as a high end playmaker who's hard to play against. He projects to be an elete, benning type player.

And if its one thing I learned, its that hockey video games are 100% right 50% of the time.

Laine is doing pretty good in my game 

 

[Crabcakes]

4 hours ago, chickenman92 said:

He's had two drafts in Vancouver, and so far you could make a case that he's missed on all his 1st round picks. He's taken good players, but honestly, it's looking like he's passed on a few better options. 

2015- Boeser over Konecny, Aho or Roslovic...tough to say who the better player will be out of those four. I think most experts would have taken Konecny there...we'll have to see If Benning missed with Boeser

2014- Personally I would have taken Virtanen to, so no issue with the pick, but it will be fun to see how he stacks up against Nylander, Ehlers and Ritchie who were the other top options at No. 6. 

And then McCann at No. 24, while it isn't a bad pick, David Pastrnak, Brendan Lemieux and Ivan Barbashev  were there. I had all three ranked above McCann on my draft board. And Benning likely knew a ton about Pastrnak, having likely given the Bruins insight on him all season long. 

Again, I don't think he's bad at drafting, but he's also not the God a lot of people making him out to be. 

Give anyone on this message board those three picks, I bet most of us make out just as well in the first round. 

It's really hard to look at a kid at 17 and try to predict what he'll be like at 25.

Aside from raw skills etc Benning looks for players who are going to get better because he believes in developing players.  Good character, work ethic, have overcome adversity in their personal life and still performed well are things he looks carefully at.  Brock Boeser is a player who has overcome adversity in his personal life. 

When interviewed about the combine, Benning said that he is more interested in the personal interviews with players and building relationships that test scores.

[kingofsurrey]

My friends kid attended a combine.  The kids agent told the kid to have his mom stay home.  She was not very tall and his agent told him that the scouts even look at the kids  parents etc  to see potential size  / height etc....

Not sure if true.

[Canuck Surfer]

12 hours ago, bp79 said:

yes you need that 1a dman but  you also need elite scoring great goaltending and a few bangers like raffi and lap. Nashville hasn't come close to a cup they are not doing so good and some might say webber is slipping a bit I think Nashville's best chance was last year when forseburg lit up d like jhe was a man possessed.  and renne was vezina good this year there  barely holding onto a wildcard with renne and Philip both having off years. You always here about needing that stud d and people throw out doughty on la keith on Chicago. truth is hawks win cuz of elite scoring and above average goaltending kings because of quick       etc etc look at the habs before price got injured 44 out of 51 points since then 11 point out of 51.the year the canucks made it to game 7 our    best was edler (I happen to like) we scored the most goals and allowed the fewest y did we lose because lou crapped the bed in 3 of        the 4 games and Thomas was glorious there are many ways to  win a cup but the best way imho goaltending now its a little early to tell but we may have gotten the best goalie out of the lou trade and demko looks like he  may be a true future elite goalie will they one day bring it home for us who knows. but just for  fun go back and read the markstrom threads after we traded lack guess benning got that one  right

The trio of Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson are all more important to Chicago's success than Crawford IMO. Seabrook is the anchor. Keith the guy who moves the puck effortlessly out of their zone, up ice and into scoring positions for their snipers. Hjalmarsson the steady guy. 

I don't disagree about the elite scoring. But I also think Keith and Seabrook are extremely significant parts of that equation. Plus Hossa contributes, Hossa and Toews also absorb all the heavy match ups up front. So Panarin & Kane are free to do as they please... There are a few components that contribute to CHI being well positioned to run with the puck up ice and score.

10 hours ago, Lulover88 said:

how much do you guys think expected draft positions will change by the time we get to the draft ?     i mean , there are always players who surprise us by raising their game and proving their worth ..  is there a possibility that a guy ranked outside of the top 5 or 10  could be ranked top 3 the by the scouts when all is said and done ?

The positions 5 down could change a lot.  Who see's anyone passing Mathews, Puljujarvi, Laine or Tkachuk? And Chychrun is an absolute stud athlete.  He could drop below 5, but I would be surprised.

Just my opinion.

[nowhereman]

There is a distinct drop-off between Matthews and the two Finns but there is also a distinct drop-off between the Finns and everybody else. If you're in the #2 spot, you either pick the BPA or trade down a few spots and nab Chychrun (although I really like what I see from Pierre-Luc Dubois).

[Gretzky to Lemieux]

16 hours ago, Odd. said:

id draft Puljujarvi easy.

Nope. Laine all the way.

[bp79]

2 hours ago, nom_de_plume said:

2 hours ago, nom_de_plume said:

2 hours ago, nom_de_plume said:

 

So, why start, then, if you hate it? 

It was just a joke based off an observation, hence the "lol" my friend.  I'm grateful you took the time to read my profile.  Thank you for that. 

Btw, grammar was a little better those two times around.  There is still room for improvement, though.  Keep on it and looking forward.  Good for you sport.

Sincerely,

Professor Nom

So, why start, then, if you hate it? 

It was just a joke based off an observation, hence the "lol" my friend.  I'm grateful you took the time to read my profile.  Thank you for that. 

Btw, grammar was a little better those two times around.  There is still room for improvement, though.  Keep on it and looking forward.  Good for you sport.

Sincerely,

Professor Nom

So, why start, then, if you hate it? 

It was just a joke based off an observation, hence the "lol" my friend.  I'm grateful you took the time to read my profile.  Thank you for that. 

Btw, grammar was a little better those two times around.  There is still room for improvement, though.  Keep on it and looking forward.  Good for you sport.

Sincerely,

Professor Nom

wow you are a piece of work. I could understand if my spelling was so bad that it detracted from my post. and I admit I don't always add a period where needed that and my cap lock along with my spacebar tend to stick. As far as my spelling majority of the word are correct. its just a hassle to have to push my period button 20 times in order for it to work. even tho your last

 

28 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

The trio of Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson are all more important to Chicago's success than Crawford IMO. Seabrook is the anchor. Keith the guy who moves the puck effortlessly out of their zone, up ice and into scoring positions for their snipers. Hjalmarsson the steady guy. 

I don't disagree about the elite scoring. But I also think Keith and Seabrook are extremely significant parts of that equation. Plus Hossa contributes, Hossa and Toews also absorb all the heavy match ups up front. So Panarin & Kane are free to do as they please... There are a few components that contribute to CHI being well positioned to run with the puck up ice and score.

The positions 5 down could change a lot.  Who see's anyone passing Mathews, Puljujarvi, Laine or Tkachuk? And Chychrun is an absolute stud athlete.  He could drop below 5, but I would be surprised.

Just my opinion.

27 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

The trio of Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson are all more important to Chicago's success than Crawford IMO. Seabrook is the anchor. Keith the guy who moves the puck effortlessly out of their zone, up ice and into scoring positions for their snipers. Hjalmarsson the steady guy. 

I don't disagree about the elite scoring. But I also think Keith and Seabrook are extremely significant parts of that equation. Plus Hossa contributes, Hossa and Toews also absorb all the heavy match ups up front. So Panarin & Kane are free to do as they please... There are a few components that contribute to CHI being well positioned to run with the puck up ice and score.

The positions 5 down could change a lot.  Who see's anyone passing Mathews, Puljujarvi, Laine or Tkachuk? And Chychrun is an absolute stud athlete.  He could drop below 5, but I would be surprised.

Just my opinion.

  

 

27 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

The trio of Keith, Seabrook and Hjalmarsson are all more important to Chicago's success than Crawford IMO. Seabrook is the anchor. Keith the guy who moves the puck effortlessly out of their zone, up ice and into scoring positions for their snipers. Hjalmarsson the steady guy. 

I don't disagree about the elite scoring. But I also think Keith and Seabrook are extremely significant parts of that equation. Plus Hossa contributes, Hossa and Toews also absorb all the heavy match ups up front. So Panarin & Kane are free to do as they please... There are a few components that contribute to CHI being well positioned to run with the puck up ice and score.

The positions 5 down could change a lot.  Who see's anyone passing Mathews, Puljujarvi, Laine or Tkachuk? And Chychrun is an absolute stud athlete.  He could drop below 5, but I would be surprised.

Just my opinion.

I don't  thin pannerin was part of the hawks run. And you are right hawks had a deep top 6 for those runs my   point  I still think they win with kane toews hossa sharp sadd . and yes Crawford didn't play well all the time but stole a few games. and even the games he allowed 4 or 5 goals, the offence bailed him out and it seemed like even those games jhe wouls make a big save allowing the hawks to score shortly after. My whole point is teams like nashvile who have or had with jones arguably 6 guys that would be top 4 guys on most teams. yet still haven't won a cup. like you said u need a top 6 who can win even if there goalie is having an off night.I will admit having keith and seabrook sure helped. just not convinced they were why chi has become the dynasy they have 2 more examples the wild and the blues great defensive teams suspect top 6 and goaltending no cups. thanx for iyour reply it seems most people here just wanna pick on your   grammer or answer with  one or 2 word rreplies that do nothing to further the thread

[Gretzky to Lemieux]

If we get the 2nd overall pick, we can't pass over Patrik Laine. This guys gonna be a 35 goal PPG player in the future. If we had to trade down then I'll trade the pick for the 7-8 spot and draft Sergachev. He's got #1 dman written all over. We would probably get another high 2nd and then package that for a low 1st and grab another D like Bean or Fabbro. Either way, it's a win-win.

[nowhereman]

5 hours ago, chickenman92 said:

He's had two drafts in Vancouver, and so far you could make a case that he's missed on all his 1st round picks. He's taken good players, but honestly, it's looking like he's passed on a few better options. 

2015- Boeser over Konecny, Aho or Roslovic...tough to say who the better player will be out of those four. I think most experts would have taken Konecny there...we'll have to see If Benning missed with Boeser

2014- Personally I would have taken Virtanen to, so no issue with the pick, but it will be fun to see how he stacks up against Nylander, Ehlers and Ritchie who were the other top options at No. 6. 

And then McCann at No. 24, while it isn't a bad pick, David Pastrnak, Brendan Lemieux and Ivan Barbashev  were there. I had all three ranked above McCann on my draft board. And Benning likely knew a ton about Pastrnak, having likely given the Bruins insight on him all season long. 

Again, I don't think he's bad at drafting, but he's also not the God a lot of people making him out to be. 

Give anyone on this message board those three picks, I bet most of us make out just as well in the first round. 

No, you really can't.

Boeser is having a tremendous season and looks like a steal. And if you had to do a re-draft today, McCann would probably go top 10-15 (only Patrnak might leapfrog him). Virtanen was always been looked at as a project, by anyone who new his game, since powerforwards rarely step into the league and dominate at the age of 18/19. Right now, you can't really be sure what you've got in him. 

Benning has been great at the draft, so far.

[clam linguine]

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

I think a good tank needed to well planned.... We have enough time to get organized.

Move - Miller, Hansen, Burrows, Edler, Hamhuis, at the deadline   -   Bartkowski  once years over. 

Bring up   Gaunce, Pedan  , Shinkaruk   ,Fedun, and  Zalewski

How about Nolan Patrick for 2017 for us.

If the vanilla management and fans could face the real issue, we would be in business. Move the Sedins and Edler tomorrow, lets say, to Edmonton, for RNH...... then we get Austin Matthews, Nolan Patrick , and about a billion in cap space.

Edmonton goes on to win the cup, so forget about how we then become the Edmonton Oilers, lol.

Somebody do a lineup with those assets to work with.  Now that would be fun.

[bp79]

2 hours ago, nom_de_plume said:

 

So, why start, then, if you hate it? 

It was just a joke based off an observation, hence the "lol" my friend.  I'm grateful you took the time to read my profile.  Thank you for that. 

Btw, grammar was a little better those two times around.  There is still room for improvement, though.  Keep on it and looking forward.  Good for you sport.

Sincerely,

Professor Nom

sorry have my post got deleted. even though your last was very condescending I apologize for  my vulgar words I used. its just that its annoying when u take the   time to write a post and instead of a reply you make fun of my grammar. which btw did not make the article   hard to read. so what u said was even more unnecessary. yuou have to admit  that last post u made the         one I'm quoting you spoke to me like I was some kind of idiot. not that it matters ive said I was sorry for    making those comments. but I'm not some idiot. I got A 1490 on my sats and played baseball  for a division 1 school fill I had to get tomny john surgery and the doctors did major nerve damage. sorry I tend to rant but I tend to throw that  whenever I can Amway I fell bad flr what I said and I am truly sorry

[THERETOOL]

6 hours ago, chickenman92 said:

If the Canucks are picking say 8th, and Matthew, Puljijarvi, Laine, Tkachuk, Chychrun, Sergachev and Juolevi go 1-7, would you trade the 8th pick for Drouin? 

really interesting question ..   I guess it would depend on who's left on the board 

[JamesB]

18 hours ago, Odd. said:

id draft Puljujarvi easy.

 

18 hours ago, Boddy604 said:

A lot of scouts are actually picking Tkachuk to go 1st recently. So Mathews may be available at #2. Either way though, absolutely one of Tkachuk or Mathews.

Either one would be a very good pick at #2 and that is what Benning should do. The team really needs a good potential 1st line star: Matthews, Puljujarvi or Tkachuk.

The idea of dropping down in the draft -- maybe a mid first round pick and equivalent prospect and getting a couple of good defensive prospects in the pipeline -- is not crazy. But I think the BPA is what the team really needs if we have one of the lottery (i.e. top 3) picks.

[Salter]

I'd trade down to around 6-8.  Bring in more assets whether they be young players, 1st/2nd round picks, or both. Depends on the teams in that area. 

[nom_de_plume]

55 minutes ago, bp79 said:

sorry have my post got deleted. even though your last was very condescending I apologize for  my vulgar words I used. its just that its annoying when u take the   time to write a post and instead of a reply you make fun of my grammar. which btw did not make the article   hard to read. so what u said was even more unnecessary. yuou have to admit  that last post u made the         one I'm quoting you spoke to me like I was some kind of idiot. not that it matters ive said I was sorry for    making those comments. but I'm not some idiot. I got A 1490 on my sats and played baseball  for a division 1 school fill I had to get tomny john surgery and the doctors did major nerve damage. sorry I tend to rant but I tend to throw that  whenever I can Amway I fell bad flr what I said and I am truly sorry

I'm confused.  Are you apologizing? You are explaining that I was condescending and then point out I intended to make you feel like an idiot, then say you are sorry?  

I apologize that I hit the only apparent nerve you had left after a botched surgery.

[EagleShield]

I get the logic in taking the BPA, but at the same time, I'm happy with our U25 crop in all areas except defense. I think we'll sign Looch as a UFA on Canada Day and if we are looking at being competitive in 2020, we have:

1. Shinkaruk McCann Virtanen
2. Baertschi Horvat Lucic
3. Sedin Sedin Boeser
4. Gaunce Cassels Etem

Whereas our D looks like:

1. Hutton Tanev
2. Tryamkin Pedan
3. Edler Subban

(Assuming Tate Olson isn't the second coming of Nik Lidstrom, which I firmly believe he is). I think we need a couple of high end D prospects, so Chychrun for me. I'd also be throwing a late second rounder at Sean Day as a bit of a long shot - and Niemelainen in the late 1st if we have one there.