Alflives Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Kraken70 said: I think the value of a top three pick is too valuable to move at all. Benning, being a draft specialist is making the pick, no matter where it is and he knows that this is one of the most important picks in Vancouver Canuck history. This is the pick that may define his tenure in Vancouver and could be the glue player that brings the future generation of Canucks together as a team. We all remember, or refer to, the Burke draft floor deal to get both Two s in '99. That defined our team's best years - BY FAR. If that first pick overall could have the value to (somehow) get us both Finns (Tanev might need to be in there too) then we could be set up for another great run of seasons. 1st overall to a team that drafts 2 or 3 we get their pick + + + Tanev + + + that we just got to the other 2 or 3 team. we pick 2 and 3 it costs us: Matthews + Tanev is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011 Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Alflives said: We all remember, or refer to, the Burke draft floor deal to get both Two s in '99. That defined our team's best years - BY FAR. If that first pick overall could have the value to (somehow) get us both Finns (Tanev might need to be in there too) then we could be set up for another great run of seasons. 1st overall to a team that drafts 2 or 3 we get their pick + + + Tanev + + + that we just got to the other 2 or 3 team. we pick 2 and 3 it costs us: Matthews + Tanev is that fair? It might be fair. I would think that GM's would take a hard look at it. To judge if its a fair deal, lets look at it from another teams perspective To trade up one spot in a draft (even if it is for first overall) I can only see a team offer as high as 2nd round pick. So lets say Van had 2 or 3 overall pick and Toronto offered Morgan Rielly and a 2nd for that pick. is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 1 minute ago, 2011 said: It might be fair. I would think that GM's would take a hard look at it. To judge if its a fair deal, lets look at it from another teams perspective To trade up one spot in a draft (even if it is for first overall) I can only see a team offer as high as 2nd round pick. So lets say Van had 2 or 3 overall pick and Toronto offered Morgan Rielly and a 2nd for that pick. is that fair? The uniqueness of this draft is Matthews is home grown in Arizona. When will that happen again? Maybe we could get more out of them because of this uniqueness, and move the extra parts to the Oilers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011 Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Alflives said: The uniqueness of this draft is Matthews is home grown in Arizona. When will that happen again? Maybe we could get more out of them because of this uniqueness, and move the extra parts to the Oilers? That's only true in your hypothetical trade proposal "if" Arizona wins a top spot in the lottery. In 7 days we will all see how the Stars align. For now its just fun speculation. Another interesting scenario; What if Van gets 6th round pick. If the draft goes in best player available order, that would leave Nylander at 6. Would Toronto have a "unique" interest in bringing the brothers together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, 2011 said: That's only true in your hypothetical trade proposal "if" Arizona wins a top spot in the lottery. In 7 days we will all see how the Stars align. For now its just fun speculation. Another interesting scenario; What if Van gets 6th round pick. If the draft goes in best player available order, that would leave Nylander at 6. Would Toronto have a "unique" interest in bringing the brothers together? The Leafs don't need to generate interest in their team, like Arizona certainly does. Like you say though, it will be fun to speculate. Most likely, because of the ceilings of these top three guys, no trades will be made for those spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 12 hours ago, AntiAquaman said: Hmmmm interesting. How about adding this if that trade was made....Then trade down to 4? with #2 pick and take Tkachuk. Imagine a Domi and Tkachuk playing together again? lol There is simply no way, and I mean NO WAY that Benning trades out of the top-3. Non-starter. Period. The overpayment would be more than any team could possibly offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 6 hours ago, coryberg said: Benning is a huge fan of Tkachuk. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we took him at #4 if we drop a spot. He called him the best player in the draft from the face off dots in. Was that in a recent interview? I haven't heard him comment much on Dubois/Tkachuk, and have only heard rumours that the team is high on Dubois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 8 hours ago, Boudrias said: If you have to ask why Canuck fans despise the Laffers I can only conclude you must be 10 -12 years old. Review and conclude. It is because Vancouver has an inferiority complex? I've been on these boards since 2003, and the two boards prior. I've been a Canucks fan for many years prior. I love my Canucks, and Vancouver will always be home, but it is somewhat comical that people care so much about the lowly Leafs. Toronto couldn't care less about the Canucks, although it seems well known that we have fair weather fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHorvat Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 On 22/04/2016 at 5:13 PM, Freeridebc said: Someone direct me if I haven't come across something like this yet. Benning stated today, it'd take a 'hell of an offer' to trade out of the top 3. I'm curious with our recent signing of Demko, and the huge season Boeser has had, if we land third over all. What sort of deal would be reasonable/ do you think a team would make for one of the Finns. Cheers. Very good chance if Canucks land in 2nd or 3rd they are picking one of the Fins and no they will not trade out of the top 3 spots. After that it's anybody's guess what he does within the 4 to 6 spots other than picking best available player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameFaker Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 12 hours ago, canucklehead44 said: It is because Vancouver has an inferiority complex? I've been on these boards since 2003, and the two boards prior. I've been a Canucks fan for many years prior. I love my Canucks, and Vancouver will always be home, but it is somewhat comical that people care so much about the lowly Leafs. Toronto couldn't care less about the Canucks, although it seems well known that we have fair weather fans. Yeah, Van has Canada's problem but magnified because of our super-modern culture of media entanglement. People here are like Schrodinger's Cat, alive and dead at once. The key difference is that they're like that even if observed... I've only become a Canucks fan recently(ish). Started in 2010, haven't looked back since. What am I saying, I look back all the time and wish I'd been reading something other than Desi and his spiritual imitators... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 20 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: Was that in a recent interview? I haven't heard him comment much on Dubois/Tkachuk, and have only heard rumours that the team is high on Dubois. January 28th. At that point he had already seen him play 15 times. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/willes+prospect+matthew+more+skilled+than/11682437/story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Desi is like the little guy from Brooklyn in the war films who goes right through the Battle of Iwo jima telling his platoon he's not going to make it. But he does - then he falls overboard during the boat journey home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 15 hours ago, coryberg said: January 28th. At that point he had already seen him play 15 times. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/willes+prospect+matthew+more+skilled+than/11682437/story.html Looks like he very much favours young Tkatchuk. I must say temperament wise I would find that pick extremely adroit. He seems to have pushback to spare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On 22 April 2016 at 4:12 PM, Fan since 82 said: Would be interesting but I don't think we have the prospects or extra picks to sell that one. If Benning could pull that off without destroying our prospect pool then he would be a hero! Our next year's first must look attractive, given the position we are in but would we do that? If we draw Matthews. Tanev/Edler + Hansen + 1st (2017) for 2016 2nd/3rd Is that overpayment? I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since 82 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, alfstonker said: Our next year's first must look attractive, given the position we are in but would we do that? If we draw Matthews. Tanev/Edler + Hansen + 1st (2017) for 2016 2nd/3rd Is that overpayment? I wonder. Well I don't know what next years draft is looking like, but I would do the above. I think we might have to throw in another top prospect though like McCann to clinch it. Still would be worth it imo to get Matthews and one of the Finns. Ahhh to dream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since 82 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On 23/04/2016 at 6:26 PM, Alflives said: We all remember, or refer to, the Burke draft floor deal to get both Two s in '99. That defined our team's best years - BY FAR. If that first pick overall could have the value to (somehow) get us both Finns (Tanev might need to be in there too) then we could be set up for another great run of seasons. 1st overall to a team that drafts 2 or 3 we get their pick + + + Tanev + + + that we just got to the other 2 or 3 team. we pick 2 and 3 it costs us: Matthews + Tanev is that fair? If we got Matthews don't we want to keep that pick? 1st line centre pretty good score! Trade for the 2nd or 3rd sure but we gotta keep the 1st OA if we get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Fan since 82 said: If we got Matthews don't we want to keep that pick? 1st line centre pretty good score! Trade for the 2nd or 3rd sure but we gotta keep the 1st OA if we get it. Exactly. I'm thinking big time on replacing the Sedins on the top line (moving them down to 2nd or 3rd line) - or at least splitting them up and maybe keeping Hank on the 1st line, Danny on the 2nd. Laine / Tkatchuk - Hank - Matthews Danny - Sutter - Virtanen Baertschi - Horvat - Etem Gaunce - Granlund - Grenier / Dorsett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On 22/04/2016 at 11:09 AM, N4ZZY said: yep. and there's nothing else they could say to the media without the media going absolutely bonkers and nuts on the team. I wouldn't be surprised if this was all posturing. no GM wants to give another GM more power than they already have it need. every GM wants to be in a position of power coming into negotiations for a trade which is probably why bigger trades don't happen more often sometimes and the ones that do, don't usually go well for one of the GM's. I don't expect any big moves at the draft to be honest. and I don't expect Benning (if we get a top three pick) to do any major wheeling. if we fall out of the top three. then yes. that's another matter. I could see him try his best to move up. or maybe even move down and gain a few more prospects and perhaps additional picks. After Maloney first made the comments, Friedman had a quote from an anonymous NHL executive that said, "maybe they won't trade OEL, but will they trade OEL+?" Of course GMs and owners say things when they can't say anything else, but that was all followed up by the owners not just saying the normal platitudes but rather being particularly candid and emphatic about it. I'd posted the actual quote before in the Maloney firing thread and could find it again but it left little doubt in my mind the owners are not thinking about moving OEL for Matthews. That said, the new GM could be of a different mind and ownership might allow him to make such a move if he sold it enough, but I think it's very unlikely at this point. Maybe other pieces, but considering their need for defence already, not OEL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On April 24, 2016 at 6:16 PM, canucklehead44 said: It is because Vancouver has an inferiority complex? I've been on these boards since 2003, and the two boards prior. I've been a Canucks fan for many years prior. I love my Canucks, and Vancouver will always be home, but it is somewhat comical that people care so much about the lowly Leafs. Toronto couldn't care less about the Canucks, although it seems well known that we have fair weather fans. just like the weather here. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, elvis15 said: After Maloney first made the comments, Friedman had a quote from an anonymous NHL executive that said, "maybe they won't trade OEL, but will they trade OEL+?" Of course GMs and owners say things when they can't say anything else, but that was all followed up by the owners not just saying the normal platitudes but rather being particularly candid and emphatic about it. I'd posted the actual quote before in the Maloney firing thread and could find it again but it left little doubt in my mind the owners are not thinking about moving OEL for Matthews. That said, the new GM could be of a different mind and ownership might allow him to make such a move if he sold it enough, but I think it's very unlikely at this point. Maybe other pieces, but considering their need for defence already, not OEL. I think ideally Arizona would love to have Matthews. and they have a chance at getting him still. all of the nonplayoff teams do. if we won Matthews. we would definitely keep him. but Benning also would be in a position of power in any trade conversations with other GM's. now with that being said. if we won Matthews. he's a Canuck. he fills a need for the future and also the best player available considered by most if not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.