Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Who does Benning value more, Tkachuk or Dubois and by how much? Thats what the title question hinges on. Does he view Tkachuck along the same lines as a puck moving D man, vs. a 1st line replacement for Daniel? The #6 pick has to be Juolevi for Benning and other GMs, so I don't see how we pick a D unless Benning thinks Juolevi fills a better need than Tkachuk. That might be the case.... if Dubois is Benning's guy but Edmonton (or whoever gets the #4) picks Dubois I wonder if he will go for Juolevi? The rationale would be having Juolevi, Stecher, Breisbois coming up through the system over the next 2-3 years added to Tanev, GudBranson, Hutton and Tryamkin would solidify our D for a long time to come, and have that mix of scoring and size we need. Add to that the new goalie depth and Benning really then only has to concentrate on replacing the twins with his next series of moves because our 2,3 & 4 line depth is pretty good. The downside of course is Tkachuk looks to be the real deal, and we'd have to go find that skill set somewhere else. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bur14Kes17 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Did you watch the Memorial Cup yesterday??? Did you see Tkachuk score 2 of Londons 3 goals including the one in OT to win the Memorial Cup??? Or see him flatten a guy who was coming in for a late hit? Hes a big game player. I would say, unless you are perhaps the Edmonton Oilers, if you're picking 4th or 5th overall, you take the best player available and don't draft for positional needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Bur14Kes17 said: Did you watch the Memorial Cup yesterday??? Did you see Tkachuk score 2 of Londons 3 goals including the one in OT to win the Memorial Cup??? Or see him flatten a guy who was coming in for a late hit? Hes a big game player. I would say, unless you are perhaps the Edmonton Oilers, if you're picking 4th or 5th overall, you take the best player available and don't draft for positional needs. I did, he's a good player, no doubt. But we really need a fully functioning D group as well. Juolevi + the other prospects I mentioned provide that. If you always draft BPA forwards, then what's your options for an elite puck moving D? It gets very hard to get those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benchsplinters Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 We need big talented guys who can put the puck in the net. We need big guys who can sustain net presence and are difficult to move from in front of the net. With a # 5 pick you take the best NA player and quit fooling around with this eenie meanie miney moe stuff. That crap ends up to be a failure most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Benchsplinters said: We need big talented guys who can put the puck in the net. We need big guys who can sustain net presence and are difficult to move from in front of the net. With a # 5 pick you take the best NA player and quit fooling around with this eenie meanie miney moe stuff. That crap ends up to be a failure most of the time. For sure, not arguing the need for more net presence. But.... where are we going to get the scoring D from if not the draft? UFAs? Not this years group. RFAs? Maybe, but teams like TO have a lot more to offer in compensation for picks that we do. Next draft? Well if we're shooting for the playoffs again that means a mid-round 1st pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bur14Kes17 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Bob Long said: I did, he's a good player, no doubt. But we really need a fully functioning D group as well. Juolevi + the other prospects I mentioned provide that. If you always draft BPA, then what's your options for an elite puck moving D? It gets very hard to get those guys. If there was an elite puck moving d man in this draft then Benning would draft them. Juolevi is only projected to be a good top 4 guy though. Probably a #3 guy. Where as both Tkachuk and Dubouis are seen as 1st line players. Dont forget you can also always swap assets and trade Tkacuk or Dubouis for an elite D man down the road. That's not what I'm suggesting, but I just saying that you should always draft a player who is worth more because they will always have more worth on the exchange market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 21 minutes ago, Bur14Kes17 said: If there was an elite puck moving d man in this draft then Benning would draft them. Juolevi is only projected to be a good top 4 guy though. Probably a #3 guy. Where as both Tkachuk and Dubouis are seen as 1st line players. Dont forget you can also always swap assets and trade Tkacuk or Dubouis for an elite D man down the road. That's not what I'm suggesting, but I just saying that you should always draft a player who is worth more because they will always have more worth on the exchange market. I think though Juolevi's stock has risen higher than that - he's surpassed Chychrun and is another 17 year old Fin who's playing incredibly well. (see eg.,. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/scouts-like-juolevi-chychrun-nhl-draft/) And I found at least 1 scouting report putting Juolevi at 5 and Tkachuck at 6 (http://www.mckeenshockey.com/prospects-blog/mckeens-2016-top-30-nhl-draft-rankings-mar-2016/) So if Juolevi is projected as a top line D that can score doesn't that make the decision a little harder? I'm wondering now if Bennings comments last week about having a D man in the top five to six means he has this order in mind: #4 Dubois #5 Juolevi #6 Tkachuck Just for fun, if Benning were able to move Edler e.g., for a later 1st round pick, would could add a big C in Logan Brown + pick up Juolevi. Now wouldn't that be nice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I wouldn't be adverse to trading the fifth overall selection for a draft choice in the sixth to 10 range plus a second round pick this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNeil Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 If Tkachuk is still there.....take him......at the very least if the Canucks miss the playoffs, we can watch our pick win the Memorial cup next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 What about Larsen? He is a RHOD. Checked out some highlights of him and he looks great. Lots of speed, confidence, shoots well, drives the net, does it all. He plays like a 4th forward, but can get back quickly if needed. Could he possibly be the offensive D we've been looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Luxury Yacht Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I will be really surprised if Edmonton doesn't take Tkachuk. If for whatever reason Tkachuk is available at 5, I will be even more surprised if Benning doesn't take him. If Tkachuck is gone at 5, I believe, at this point in time, Benning will pick Dubois. I know he covets a D-man, but I also know Aquilini is driving the management group to be competitive now, and a forward will have a faster impact than a D. I don't think Juolevi will be our pick regardless if Tkachuck is available at 5 or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 minute ago, NUCKER67 said: What about Larsen? He is a RHOD. Checked out some highlights of him and he looks great. Lots of speed, confidence, shoots well, drives the net, does it all. He plays like a 4th forward, but can get back quickly if needed. Could he possibly be the offensive D we've been looking for? Yah he was one of the top scoring D in the KHL (but so was Cam Barker ). He's worth taking a chance on for sure but I don't think he has the ceiling of Juolevi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 minute ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said: I will be really surprised if Edmonton doesn't take Tkachuk. If for whatever reason Tkachuk is available at 5, I will be even more surprised if Benning doesn't take him. If Tkachuck is gone at 5, I believe, at this point in time, Benning will pick Dubois. I know he covets a D-man, but I also know Aquilini is driving the management group to be competitive now, and a forward will have a faster impact than a D. I don't think Juolevi will be our pick regardless if Tkachuck is available at 5 or not. I think your key words here are about Aqualini driving the bus. Isn't that scary for a team's future when the owner starts influencing hockey decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said: I will be really surprised if Edmonton doesn't take Tkachuk. If for whatever reason Tkachuk is available at 5, I will be even more surprised if Benning doesn't take him. If Tkachuck is gone at 5, I believe, at this point in time, Benning will pick Dubois. I know he covets a D-man, but I also know Aquilini is driving the management group to be competitive now, and a forward will have a faster impact than a D. I don't think Juolevi will be our pick regardless if Tkachuck is available at 5 or not. Personally I think its 99% that Edmonton moves that pick. I don't think they are high on a puck moving D with McDiver providing the offence, and putting in Dubois as a 3rd or 4th line C would be a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Benning has already gone on record as saying they don't project any of the D in this draft as clear #1 D-men. Also, with the emergence of Hutton and addition of Gubrandson, our D depth is probably better than our LW depth. Daniel isn't getting any younger, and after him there's just Baertschi. So LW is now our position of greatest need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I think it'll be very awkward if we didn't take Tkachuk when he is available to us. And probably extremely regret it years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 39 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I think though Juolevi's stock has risen higher than that - he's surpassed Chychrun and is another 17 year old Fin who's playing incredibly well. (see eg.,. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/scouts-like-juolevi-chychrun-nhl-draft/) And I found at least 1 scouting report putting Juolevi at 5 and Tkachuck at 6 (http://www.mckeenshockey.com/prospects-blog/mckeens-2016-top-30-nhl-draft-rankings-mar-2016/) So if Juolevi is projected as a top line D that can score doesn't that make the decision a little harder? I'm wondering now if Bennings comments last week about having a D man in the top five to six means he has this order in mind: #4 Dubois #5 Juolevi #6 Tkachuck Just for fun, if Benning were able to move Edler e.g., for a later 1st round pick, would could add a big C in Logan Brown + pick up Juolevi. Now wouldn't that be nice? Benning said 'in our top 6' regarding drafting a D....never did he day top 5 (he picked his words carefully).....He also said that he doesn't believe that there are any 1A Dmen in this draft (although a first pairing pmd would be sweet)...Benning is usually genuine and forthcoming in his interviews,but I'm sure some of what he is saying in interviews is deflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Luxury Yacht Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Personally I think its 99% that Edmonton moves that pick. I don't think they are high on a puck moving D with McDiver providing the offence, and putting in Dubois as a 3rd or 4th line C would be a shame. I agree it is a likely scenario. Trade #4 for a Dman. If the Oil don't trade it, I bet they pick Tkachuk, for no other reason that he is projected as the BPA, and they will make moves to adjust...whether trading the pick, the player or a higher cap-hit, different roster player like Hall or Nuge, I expect the Oil will be active before next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, Honky Cat said: Benning said 'in our top 6' regarding drafting a D....never did he day top 5 (he picked his words carefully).....He also said that he doesn't believe that there are any 1A Dmen in this draft (although a first pairing pmd would be sweet)...Benning is usually genuine and forthcoming in his interviews,but I'm sure some of what he is saying in interviews is deflection. Ah - I thought he said yes to the 5 or 6 question. But maybe the right question is Dubois vs Juolevi, given that Edmonton probably moves this pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Since the world juniors, the 3 names that came up more often in discussion are IMO Matthews, Laine and Tkachuk. Puljujarvi has been labeled top 3 since the start of the season, but since the U20 we haven't really heard about him, even though he was at the U18. I know the odds are high Puljujarvi will go #3, specially with the Finnish connection in Columbus, but I'm surprised there hasn't been a bigger debate for the #3 spot. Everyone assumes Puljujarvi will go #3, despite his low visibility and Tkachuk recent's play. If anyone else beside Columbus in #3 I would bet Tkachuk would be the choice. Highly, really Highly doubt Tkachuk is available at #5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.