If the Canucks select Logan brown at 5 would you be upset?

[aGENT]

Just now, Fred65 said:

Looking at the current roster one thing for sure is Vcr is heavy with forwards. The team does not need volume but needs quality, JB best not waste this pick

I'm not advocating taking Brown. Simply stating if that's who Benning wants as per the person I quoted, he's better off trading down.

 

Personally I either take whoever's left of PLD/MT or I trade down, grab one of the top three D (who I feel will be at least as good) and additional assets.

[Lui's Knob]

At 5 yes; at 10-12, no

[wren223]

I would be very disappointed if we took Brown at #5. That's basically a waste of a pick. Why get a high end pick to take a flyer on a player that wasn't ranked in the top 10 until just recently and even that isn't a concensus either. So often on CDC it is bemoaned not having top end prospects, having that scoring threat or getting a shot to take an top end player in the draft. We now have the chance and it's odd some want to trade that away for maybes, ifs and chances.

 

Right now Benning controls his pick. Trade it to drop down to hope other teams don't take a player Van has targetted and get a late first or second rounder? Who's giving up the two firsts? What if who we want is gone and we take our fourth or fifth choice player? Who is going to be happy having a Bean when we could have a Tkachuk or Dubios or Juliovei? Brown instead of Dubios? All these situations just don't make sense. Why have two Linden Veys when you can have one high end talent?

 

Benning stands pat and takes Tkachuk or Dubios. Control your fate, don't leave it in the hands of others.

[theminister]

21 hours ago, Harvey Spector said:

The chances of us taking Brown at 5 are as slim as Toronto trading the first overall pick. 

 

JB is gonna take BPA. That's either Dubois or Tkachuk. I highly doubt he trades down either as there are only so many times that you can get a top 5 pick. As a matter of fact there is only one time in history Vancouver has actually traded a top 5 pick and at the time they traded that first round pick they were not projecting it to be top 5. Let's just say that trade turned out really really bad...

Glen Wesley?

 

We also traded a top 5 pick to get Daniel Sedin, as it turned out. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 minutes ago, theminister said:

Glen Wesley?

 

We also traded a top 5 pick to get Daniel Sedin, as it turned out. 

If I remember correctly we never had the 5th at all,  That pick belonged to the islanders and wasn't moved in 1999.

 

We traded McCabe and 2000 first round picks (11th overall) to the hawks for the 4th overall, which we then flipped to tampa along with some 2nd round picks, for the 1st overall.  We then sent the 1st overall to ATL for the 2nd overall and the rest is history. 

 

 

[theminister]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If I remember correctly we never had the 5th at all,  That pick belonged to the islanders and wasn't moved in 1999.

 

We traded McCabe and 2000 first round picks (11th overall) to the hawks for the 4th overall, which we then flipped to tampa along with some 2nd round picks, for the 1st overall.  We then sent the 1st overall to ATL for the 2nd overall and the rest is history. 

 

 

We actually had the 1st OA of the Thrashers and traded down. There is a lesson there. 

 

Yeah, we are saying the same thing. The 5th was the only pick in the top 5 in '99 we didn't control at any point. 

 

I was responding to the above quote that we only ever traded a top 5 pick once. We did it twice in '99. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

22 minutes ago, theminister said:

We actually had the 1st OA of the Thrashers and traded down. There is a lesson there. 

Well, we had the 1st overall which we acquired from Tampa.  But it was thought that if the twins weren't drafted by the same team they wouldn't play.  At the time controlled the 1st overall and 3rd overall, with ATL having the 2nd overall.  I don't think we really needed to trade down with ATL and we still could have ended up with both sedins but Burke did some good negotiating.

 

 

Quote

Yeah, we are saying the same thing. The 5th was the only pick in the top 5 in '99 we didn't control at any point. 

 

I was responding to the above quote that we only ever traded a top 5 pick once. We did it twice in '99. 

Yeah that makes sense, but that pick was used to trade up, not to trade down outside of the top 5.  Which i think was the point harvey was stating was a bad idea.

[Harvey Spector]

54 minutes ago, theminister said:

Glen Wesley?

 

We also traded a top 5 pick to get Daniel Sedin, as it turned out. 

Yeah we traded a first and Neely for Barry Pederson. That first ended up being third overall and Boston took Wesley. Just the third overall itself for Pedesron was overpayment. But then we threw in Neely as well to sweeten the deal!! Lol!!  Most lopsided trade in Canucks history. 

 

As was already stated we traded McCabe and a first to get Chicago's fourth. Then through a couple trades later we ended up with the 2nd pick. So we only traded the fourth to eventually get the 2nd to get both twins. 

 

 

[Harvey Spector]

42 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Well, we had the 1st overall which we acquired from Tampa.  But it was thought that if the twins weren't drafted by the same team they wouldn't play.  At the time controlled the 1st overall and 3rd overall, with ATL having the 2nd overall.  I don't think we really needed to trade down with ATL and we still could have ended up with both sedins but Burke did some good negotiating.

 

 

Yeah that makes sense, but that pick was used to trade up, not to trade down outside of the top 5.  Which i think was the point harvey was stating was a bad idea.

Yes exactly. I was trying to make the point of trading down from a top 5 position was a bad idea.  And technically we've never done it.  Like you said in 1999 we traded up not down to get Daniel. 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Harvey Spector said:

Yes exactly. I was trying to make the point of trading down from a top 5 position was a bad idea.  And technically we've never done it. 

Maybe it's time to take a page out of the Seinfeld episode where George does the opposite of what he'd normally do? 

[theminister]

12 minutes ago, Harvey Spector said:

Yes exactly. I was trying to make the point of trading down from a top 5 position was a bad idea.  And technically we've never done it.  Like you said in 1999 we traded up not down to get Daniel. 

In '77 we should have traded down from 4th to 15th. 

[LaBamba]

This player has the biggest Boom or bust in the first round IMO. 

Big players are so hard to judge because of the insane physical advantage they have over the tweener Dmen of Jr hockey. They come to the NHL and get easily rattled, they conpletely lose their swagger. 

 

That being said, he is still a monster at the NHL level and he is only 18. Wait till he fills out. He is so big that the PF transition might not be as hard. Not too many players will be able to deal with his size. 

 

So I don't think I would be disappointed with this pick at 5. He is an anomaly. If he realized his potential he would completely change the dynamic of the team. He may become a one of a kind.  

[ForsbergTheGreat]

30 minutes ago, theminister said:

In '77 we should have traded down from 4th to 15th. 

Or we should have just picked Bossy at 4.

 

You don't trade down unless there a grouping of players your comfortable ended up with.  If canucks traded down to 15 and Bossy went 14th. Then what? 

 

Trading down at any spot in the first round doesn't have much of a success rate.  If your sold on a player being the best, you pick him at your spot.  You don't put your ideal pick in the hands of other teams.

[theminister]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Or we should have just picked Bossy at 4.

 

You don't trade down unless there a grouping of players your comfortable ended up with.  If canucks traded down to 15 and Bossy went 14th. Then what? 

 

Trading down at any spot in the first round doesn't have much of a success rate.  If your sold on a player being the best, you pick him at your spot.  You don't put your ideal pick in the hands of other teams.

I know, I know I was trying to be funny. We agree on the groupings philosophy. 

 

Not unless you're sure of your groupings and feel the total value makes up the balance. I've never suggested us doing it, BTW. I want and expect us to pick. 

[Angry Goose]

Before the lottery TL said there was a player at #4 he would absolutely be happy with picking......I have a feeling it was Tkachuk. However, I like Dubois as well so I'm happy with either.  If the Canucks trade down a few spots to acquire another 2nd round pick I would be just as happy with that as well!