[Discussion] Tadeing 5th pick

[ChampStatus]

Ok so here comes the crazy post about trading the 5th pick.

 

To trade the pick you have to address the issues the Canucks have.

So here are my opinions on what the canucks need to address:

1st line center prospect

D Prospects.

 

Lastly addressing the players we would target if we are trading down.

In my opinion the only reason to trade down if they are the canucks is to get a Defenseman.

There are a few D-Men the top D-Men are according to Craig Button: (For discssion Craig Button draft is correct)

8th Pick Olli Juolevi (CGY)

10th Pick Mikhail Sergachev (COL)

12th Pick Jakob Chychrun (OTT)

14th Pick Charlie McAvoy (BOS)

With: Jake Bean, Dante Fabbro, Logan Stanley and Markus Niemeläinen somewhere from 15-30th.

 

In this order the D men that look appealing for the canucks.

 

Dante Fabbro: (High Risk) Good value. For a player who is going to be around pick 16-18. He is offensively minded and showed very well in the u18 for Canada. His stock is lower for playing in the BCHL. If he was playing in Seattle T-Birds (the WHL team that drafted him) progressing at the same level he did in BCHL he would be ranked higher. Team Picking him 16 Detroit Red Wings.

 

Detroit is a small team and are limited in size. With Pavel leaving i see Pierre Luc Dubois or Matthew Tkachuk fitting in real nice in Detriot.

Option:

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

93ed Pick

 

To Detroit For

16th Pick

and Andreas Athanasiou

 

Mikhail Sergachev: (10th Pick Colorado) High Offense, Strong D-Zone Play. Dropping down to 10th makes more since. Colorado has strong D prospects and are looking to add depth in forward prospects.

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

 

To Colorado for

10th pick

JT Compher

 

Jakob Chychrun: (12th Pick Ottawa) Not as high offense output. Strong D-Zone Play. Ottawa's prospect pool is not the strongest the forwards are weaker. So might not be the best trade to go for.

 

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

93ed Pick

To Ottawa for

12th Pick

42nd Pick

Filip Chlapik

 

Lastly Olli Juolevi: (8th pick Calgary) a harder trade to make. Calgary is in need for D prospects. So might be a harder trade but they do need some offensive prospects.

 

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

 

To Calgary for

8th Pick

Tyler Wotherspoon

 

 

OK Good ahead people flame away

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

trade the pick for  a more ready defencemen with adding a few pieces, like Theodore, Fowler, Barrie, etc.

 

no to most of your trades, and hell no to trade with Calgary they gave us Granlund no more.

[ChampStatus]

4 minutes ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

trade the pick for  a more ready defencemen with adding a few pieces, like Theodore, Fowler, Barrie, etc.

 

no to most of your trades, and hell no to trade with Calgary they gave us Granlund no more.

I do agree with trades for more NHL ready Defencemen. But the problem with that is Theodore is a potential top 1-2 d-men and is not likely he will get traded. Fowler is a good d-men but is not worth the 5th overal pick for. Barrie is a a high value d-man for what you are getting. We are better off trading down to get a d-man then paying 5-6m for a Tyson Barrie d-men.

[falcon45ca]

Does anyone have any real solid, concrete examples (more than 1) where trading down at the draft actually benefits a team more so than staying with their high pick?

 

I'm not a fan of trading down...trading up, different story.

[Z Hockey]

3 hours ago, ChampStatus said:

Ok so here comes the crazy post about trading the 5th pick.

 

To trade the pick you have to address the issues the Canucks have.

So here are my opinions on what the canucks need to address:

1st line center prospect

D Prospects.

 

Lastly addressing the players we would target if we are trading down.

In my opinion the only reason to trade down if they are the canucks is to get a Defenseman.

There are a few D-Men the top D-Men are according to Craig Button: (For discssion Craig Button draft is correct)

8th Pick Olli Juolevi (CGY)

10th Pick Mikhail Sergachev (COL)

12th Pick Jakob Chychrun (OTT)

14th Pick Charlie McAvoy (BOS)

With: Jake Bean, Dante Fabbro, Logan Stanley and Markus Niemeläinen somewhere from 15-30th.

 

In this order the D men that look appealing for the canucks.

 

Dante Fabbro: (High Risk) Good value. For a player who is going to be around pick 16-18. He is offensively minded and showed very well in the u18 for Canada. His stock is lower for playing in the BCHL. If he was playing in Seattle T-Birds (the WHL team that drafted him) progressing at the same level he did in BCHL he would be ranked higher. Team Picking him 16 Detroit Red Wings.

 

Detroit is a small team and are limited in size. With Pavel leaving i see Pierre Luc Dubois or Matthew Tkachuk fitting in real nice in Detriot.

Option:

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

93ed Pick

 

To Detroit For

16th Pick

and Andreas Athanasiou

 

Mikhail Sergachev: (10th Pick Colorado) High Offense, Strong D-Zone Play. Dropping down to 10th makes more since. Colorado has strong D prospects and are looking to add depth in forward prospects.

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

 

To Colorado for

10th pick

JT Compher

 

Jakob Chychrun: (12th Pick Ottawa) Not as high offense output. Strong D-Zone Play. Ottawa's prospect pool is not the strongest the forwards are weaker. So might not be the best trade to go for.

 

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

93ed Pick

To Ottawa for

12th Pick

42nd Pick

Filip Chlapik

 

Lastly Olli Juolevi: (8th pick Calgary) a harder trade to make. Calgary is in need for D prospects. So might be a harder trade but they do need some offensive prospects.

 

Canucks Trade

5th Pick

 

To Calgary for

8th Pick

Tyler Wotherspoon

 

 

OK Good ahead people flame away

We have two young potential future 1st line Cs, their names are

Bo Horvat and Jared McCann...

 

Those trades are pretty awful.

 

The first trade we basically move down 11 spots and give up an additional pick, to also acquire a young forward who looked good in one spurt of a season and has proven

basically nothing.

More like 5th overall and a mid to low pick for 16th overall & Tatar. 

 

The Avalanche trade is underpayment, more like 10th overall, Zadorov, and a 3rd

rounder for 5th overall and a conditional pick.

 

The Ottawa is trade is terrible for us, we

basically move down seven spots to also acquire two additional mid 2nd rounders (42nd and Chlapik was Ottawas 2nd round choice last year at 48th overall.)

More like 5th overall and a mid pick for

12th overall, Lazar, 2nd, and a 3rd.

 

The Flames have the 6th overall pick not 8th..... And still no, no way we move down one spot to our biggest division rival just to acquire Tyler Wotherspoon who's at best a #5 ok 2-way D man who's seriously pushing bust territory......

 

Fabbro is not that high risk, he will be the steal of the D men.

[Sedinery33]

4 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Does anyone have any real solid, concrete examples (more than 1) where trading down at the draft actually benefits a team more so than staying with their high pick?

 

I'm not a fan of trading down...trading up, different story.

Yes trading up is great:

 

Jared McCann, 5th overall, and Columbus 2nd they owe us to Columbus for 3rd Overall.

 

Columbus entertains the idea because they need that 1st line center they traded to Nashville, maybe they believe McCann can be that guy IDK! However I would not give up much more to move up 2 places, I don't think the Finn is that much better that others in the top 10, just more ready for the NHL

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

Does anyone have any real solid, concrete examples (more than 1) where trading down at the draft actually benefits a team more so than staying with their high pick?

 

I'm not a fan of trading down...trading up, different story.

Yep, that one time the flames traded down from 14th overall to pick up a 21st overall and a 42nd overall to pick the player who will become the best player in the draft Mark Jankowski when we look back in 10 years.

 

Players they decided to pass up on:

 

14th - Girgensons

15th - Ceci

16th - Wilson

17th - Hertl

18th - Teravainen

19th - Vasilevskiy

20th - Laughton

21st - Jankowski

22nd - Olli Maata

 

.......Well maybe that was a bad example

[ice orca]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yep, that one time the flames traded down from 14th overall to pick up a 21st overall and a 42nd overall to pick the player who will become the best player in the draft Mark Jankowski when we look back in 10 years.

 

Players they decided to pass up on:

 

14th - Girgensons

15th - Ceci

16th - Wilson

17th - Hertl

18th - Teravainen

19th - Vasilevskiy

20th - Laughton

21st - Jankowski

22nd - Olli Maata

 

.......Well maybe that was a bad example

The great Wiesbrod was the brain in that pick.

[SaintPatrick33]

Booooooooooooooooooo! 

 

The fans boo your trade proposals, also that 5th overall pick Benning will draft us a core player. 

 

Welcome to CDC, where all your trade dreams get shot down by common sense. Although I love the effort........

 

How about this? Lets keep Bennings drafted prospects and quit &^@#ing with the system. I already love Jake, Demko, Trymak, Sautner, McCann, Boeser and Hutton 

[Heretic]

No. No. No.  We are rebuilding.  Do not trade our pick.

[Ghostsof1915]

In the centre ice position we have:

 

H. Sedin

Sutter

Horvat

McCann (C or wing)

Granlund

Gaunce (C or Wing)

Cassels

 

Yet there seems to be an assumption we are weak at centre ice? Gaunce or McCann are probably going to Utica or play wing. 

We also have Gaudette, Zhukenov, and Pettit who are going to need jobs in Utica eventually. Unless we're getting some insanely skilled centre why does everyone want to trade for a centre? Yes, Henrik will be gone in 2 years. A top end d-man, or winger who can score seems to be more of a pressing need. Oddly enough at the 5th position we have a good chance that the BPA, also will fill an organizational need.

[Warhippy]

This would be a franchise defining...tade 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

This would be a franchise defining...tade 

 

Ya we aren't tadeing the 5th pick

[hlinkas wrister]

Trade down to draft a "maybe" player like Hunter Shinkaruk plus another organizations already drafted "maybe" bottom 6 or bottom pairing d-man ? Or keep our 5th and draft a potential top line or top d-pair player, or better yet try to trade up for a franchise player ? Drafting at 5th or better is our highest pick in almost 20 years- and we "earned" it by sucking. Trading it for 2 players who may never amount to anything would be unnecessarily gambling with the teams future.    

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, hlinkas wrister said:

Trade down to draft a "maybe" player like Hunter Shinkaruk plus another organizations already drafted "maybe" bottom 6 or bottom pairing d-man ? Or keep our 5th and draft a potential top line or top d-pair player, or better yet try to trade up for a franchise player ? Drafting at 5th or better is our highest pick in almost 20 years- and we "earned" it by sucking. Trading it for 2 players who may never amount to anything would be unnecessarily gambling with the teams future.    

Most say that picks 4-10 are pretty interchangeable and there’s not a real clear cut better prospect in that grouping.

 

Nylander, Tkachuk, Dubois, Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev are all a toss up to who’s the going to be the better player.  Canucks could pick any of these players at 5 just as we could pick any of these player at 9.

 

If we can pick Juolevi at 5 or pick him at 8 with a small extra piece coming our way, why wouldn’t we consider it.  It doesn’t make him any more of a potential top D based on the spot we pick him.  It really comes down to determining what other teams needs are and who we think they want.  A team like MTL might really want a local kid who can play center, while canucks might want a D and think one of the D we want is available at 9, so what’s the harm in swapping spots, with us getting extra for moving down. 

[hlinkas wrister]

13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Most say that picks 4-10 are pretty interchangeable and there’s not a real clear cut better prospect in that grouping.

 

Nylander, Tkachuk, Dubois, Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev are all a toss up to who’s the going to be the better player.  Canucks could pick any of these players at 5 just as we could pick any of these player at 9.

 

If we can pick Juolevi at 5 or pick him at 8 with a small extra piece coming our way, why wouldn’t we consider it.  It doesn’t make him any more of a potential top D based on the spot we pick him.  It really comes down to determining what other teams needs are and who we think they want.  A team like MTL might really want a local kid who can play center, while canucks might want a D and think one of the D we want is available at 9, so what’s the harm in swapping spots, with us getting extra for moving down. 

Sure, something for nothing is nice, but if you use the same logic why would a team give us something to move from 9 to 5 if there is no discernible difference between picks 4-10 ? Also, having pick number 5 guarantees us a chance to address an organizational need- if that need happens to be a specific type of defenceman can you be sure the guy we want is still on the board at 9 ? You pretty much can at pick # 5. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

41 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said:

Sure, something for nothing is nice, but if you use the same logic why would a team give us something to move from 9 to 5 if there is no discernible difference between picks 4-10 ? Also, having pick number 5 guarantees us a chance to address an organizational need- if that need happens to be a specific type of defenceman can you be sure the guy we want is still on the board at 9 ? You pretty much can at pick # 5. 

 

Team needs basically.  Like I said maybe one team has a bigger need than the other so their willing to pay extra to ensure they get that guy.  Example would be MTL wanting Dubois where Canucks are more interested in a D.

 

There isn’t a guaranteed that a specific D will be still around a 9, but one of the 3 D I mentioned should be available.  If we are sold on a guy, then sure let’s take him at 5, but most scouts aren’t sold on a specific guy, not one is really a cut about the rest.  And if that’s the case for us and were fine with any of the 3 D available why not pick up an extra piece.  I wouldn’t go farther than 9 maybe 10 spot and we likely won’t be getting a huge return coming back since every player is so close in this grouping, but an extra 2nd round pick does help. 

 

 

 

Take 2014 year for example if TO offered us 8th overall + 2015 2nd round pick, for the 6th overall would it have been something to consider.  Were canucks sold on virtanen,  Were canucks sold that Virtanen wouldn't be still around at 8th. Would canucks have been comfortable picking another player had Virtanen been gone by 8?

[Nessnuck27]

Would it be worth it to trade up to the 4th overall pick to ensure we get Pierre-Luc Dubois?

 

To Edmonton:

5th Overall

Tanev

 

To Vancouver:

4th Overall

32 Overall

[ChampStatus]

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

In the centre ice position we have:

 

H. Sedin

Sutter

Horvat

McCann (C or wing)

Granlund

Gaunce (C or Wing)

Cassels

 

Yet there seems to be an assumption we are weak at centre ice? Gaunce or McCann are probably going to Utica or play wing. 

We also have Gaudette, Zhukenov, and Pettit who are going to need jobs in Utica eventually. Unless we're getting some insanely skilled centre why does everyone want to trade for a centre? Yes, Henrik will be gone in 2 years. A top end d-man, or winger who can score seems to be more of a pressing need. Oddly enough at the 5th position we have a good chance that the BPA, also will fill an organizational need.

Sorry to burst your bubble but canucks fans always over value assets.

 

H. Sedin is an aging center maybe has one more good year at #1 Center

Sutter is a 2nd line center that has a long history for getting injured

Horvat has no where but the third line to play and is not talented enough to take over Sedins roll in 1st line

McCann too young and not stong enough to play on the 4th line so wing is the only option

Granlund is what granlund is. Soft and has a problem scoring.

Gaunce is never going to be more then a floater from ahl-nhl

Cassels work ethic is showing why was a star in the OHL but cant compete in the AHL

 

So to recap yes we have Centers but one thing i leaned was you put lipstick on a pig its still a pig.

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, ChampStatus said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but canucks fans always over value assets.

 

H. Sedin is an aging center maybe has one more good year at #1 Center

Sutter is a 2nd line center that has a long history for getting injured

Horvat has no where but the third line to play and is not talented enough to take over Sedins roll in 1st line

McCann too young and not stong enough to play on the 4th line so wing is the only option

Granlund is what granlund is. Soft and has a problem scoring.

Gaunce is never going to be more then a floater from ahl-nhl

Cassels work ethic is showing why was a star in the OHL but cant compete in the AHL

 

So to recap yes we have Centers but one thing i leaned was you put lipstick on a pig its still a pig.

 

 

And Canucks fans also overvalue potential and think that the stat lines in junior/AHL or college translates into NHL superstars. And seemingly completely disregard that a top 5 pick can be an impact player. There have been busts at top 10. The best way is to lower your odds and do your homework. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. How many people said that Kesler and the Twins were not first line material? Nugent-Hopkins got 1 more point, and 1 less goal than Draisaitl in his rookie year. Does that make him a better player? Same level?