[Discussion] How to get our #1 Defensemen

[Cowichan Canuck]

1 hour ago, smokes said:

THe Canucks best best is to use Benning drafting resume and come up with a stud defenceman via draft. Then wait a few years.

Problem with this is that almost everyone thinks that #1D isn't in this draft, and if it happens to be, then which one is it?

I'm sure one of the many D men do become a #1, but nobody is sure of who that is.

2017 is known to be a weak draft and I have no idea who would be considered a potential #1D man from the 2017 class.

 

We need three things, #1D, #1C, and #1LW.

With this pick #5, it is imperative to our future that we address one of these needs via just drafting Tkachuk/Dubois (slight risk for either to become #1LW, high risk Dubois does not become a #1C), trading for an established #1D,C, or LW with a probable overpayment (very low risk as already established) or drafting a dman (extremely high risk this player does not become a #1D)

 

Because this is our best draft pick since the Sedins, my belief is you draft either Tkachuk/Dubois and live with the slight risk they become 2nd liners, or you trade that #5 pick for a proven/highly projected #1C, LW, D.

Here is why:

 

Drafting a dman or trading down to get one of them could prove to be a massive error that does not address our three needs, this is by far the highest risk in my opinion.

The ONLY thing our defense needs is the highly offensive pp QB, that is not Chychrun, i don't think it is Juolevi, and it could be Sergachev/Fabbro/Bean but it just so happens Sergachev/Fabbro/Bean are also the most likely to not fulfill their potential. I'm not willing to take that risk. We don't need another Hutton, Edler or Gudbranson, we need a bonafide #1

 

The second highest risk is trying to draft that #1C.

Dubois is the lowest risk for this because if he doesn't translate at C then fine, he's a LW. Dubois still is a slight risk to not be a #1LW, which I think he would eventually be. Brown is a massive risk/reward, his deficiences are all heart and mind in my opinion. He could be a huge bust, 3rd line center floor, #1C ceiling. Jost/Keller both have major ?'s. The chance of getting that #1c in my opinion through this draft is slightly higher than getting the #1D.

 

The lowest risk is trading for an established young player, rookie last year or rookie this upcoming year further in their developement than we can draft @ #5. This player will cost more (ie Domi now, costs more than the #12 he was drafted at because of proven devopement, lower risk)

 

The reason why I don't think we can afford to F around with this #5 asset and take a unnecessary risk is for 3 reasons:

1. Ownership/management will not allow us to be as bad as we were again this past year. We probably won't get an asset like #5 again for some time.

2. Jake Virtanen probably won't end up being a #1RW. I really like Jake. It's not his fault he was drafted #6, but even if we didn't have Boeser I still don't think Jake's ceiling is anything more than a #2 RW. If balancing lines is important then sure Jake can play #1RW, but I think everyone knows what I'm getting at for a realistic expectation of him. He offers things Nylander/Ehlers don't and vice versa. Either way, I think our RW top 2 is perfect, but in hindsight, that #6 could have gained us some much needed Skill, or Hayden Fleury. 

3. We need top end talent, we have everything else.

 

This is why we should make a trade, because the consequences of not getting a sure thing, could really be the diff in winning a stanley cup and losing one. Drafting a dman outside of the lottery (even in the lottery) is a massive crapshoot. I bet Chicago never expected Keith to be Keith at #54. You take Keith away from Chicago and bye bye cups. It's a fluke Keith translated. We can't base our chances on luck.

My order:

1Trade #5 and more for young #1D man (hardest, most expensive) Provorov, Bowey, Jones, Hanifin, Theodore, Sanheim, etc

2Trade #5 and more for young #1C (very hard, expensive) Reinhart, Galchenyuk, Mackinnon

3Trade #5 for a #1LW basically straight across or slight add depending (Domi, Drouin)

4Draft Tkachuk/Dubois

5Trade down for a D or C pick.

6.Trade down and take Nylander (i bet for marketing Toronto would offer a nice package to have the Nylander brothers like we have the Sedin twins) he plays both wings and would probably address our future #1 LW.

[Where'd Luongo?]

I'm telling you, it's Jake Bean.

[Bob Long]

55 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

I'm telling you, it's Jake Bean.

But if size is part of the "true #1" package Bean isn't that... unless he's a magic bean that can hit more than the laws of physics allow.

[Where'd Luongo?]

18 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

But if size is part of the "true #1" package Bean isn't that... unless he's a magic bean that can hit more than the laws of physics allow.

6ft isn't too bad for a puck moving defender. Chances are he will still grow another inch or two, and will definitely put on some weight. I'm guessing he's a 6'1" 195lb defender by the time he is 21. I've watched him play and he is on another level than his current competition for sure, and damn can he ever put up points. He had almost as many points as Travis Sanheim and he's almost 3 years younger. If he can bring the points, I could care less if he is 6ft or 6'5". We finally have a bunch of monsters on D, it's time to get some skill.

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

6ft isn't too bad for a puck moving defender. Chances are he will still grow another inch or two, and will definitely put on some weight. I'm guessing he's a 6'1" 195lb defender by the time he is 21. I've watched him play and he is on another level than his current competition for sure, and damn can he ever put up points. He had almost as many points as Travis Sanheim and he's almost 3 years younger. If he can bring the points, I could care less if he is 6ft or 6'5". We finally have a bunch of monsters on D, it's time to get some skill.

Yah scoring works too. I actually think the whole idea of having 'it all' in one guy is a bit ridiculous in the game today. Shea Weber e.g., isn't what he used to be - just too much wear and tear on a bigger body.

[Where'd Luongo?]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

Yah scoring works too. I actually think the whole idea of having 'it all' in one guy is a bit ridiculous in the game today. Shea Weber e.g., isn't what he used to be - just too much wear and tear on a bigger body.

Erik Karlsson is a good example of a #1 defender who isn't a big guy, in fact he and Beansy are similar in stature. As you said though, even Erik doesn't "have it all". His +/- throughout his career show that. At the same time, I would take him in a heartbeat and so would almost every other team in the league. Now that we have Gudbranson, we have a strong stay at home defender to play with a risky playmaker. Hockey is a team game, people say it all the time and yet they want one guy to do everything. Get people who can compliment one another.

 

Good example of this was Bonino, Kessel and Hagelin this playoffs. A slower playmaking centre with two of the fastest in the league. Bonino has a fairly weak shot but Kessel can fire a wrister harder than most. Put them together and boom, the best line in the playoffs.

[Bob Long]

46 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

Erik Karlsson is a good example of a #1 defender who isn't a big guy, in fact he and Beansy are similar in stature. As you said though, even Erik doesn't "have it all". His +/- throughout his career show that. At the same time, I would take him in a heartbeat and so would almost every other team in the league. Now that we have Gudbranson, we have a strong stay at home defender to play with a risky playmaker. Hockey is a team game, people say it all the time and yet they want one guy to do everything. Get people who can compliment one another.

 

Good example of this was Bonino, Kessel and Hagelin this playoffs. A slower playmaking centre with two of the fastest in the league. Bonino has a fairly weak shot but Kessel can fire a wrister harder than most. Put them together and boom, the best line in the playoffs.

Thats a good example - Beano with GudB would be an upgraded version of Hutton-GudB, and I like Hutton a lot - or eventually this, which is a nice all around mix of D skills, with speed, scoring, good 2 way play and some size. 

 

Bean-Tanev

Hutton-GudBranson

Tryamkin-Stecher

[Noble 6]

I proposed going for Provorov a while back. He is now behind Gostisbehere on the left side and he would be an expensive second pairing defensman when he gets going. I understand that it's not likely, like at all, but I think he is the one elite defensman we could have a shot at through trade. 

 

I think building a well-rounded defense core is our best and most likely route. If we have 5 or even 6 guys who are all capable of contributing in some way shape or form we will be better off than pinning all our hopes on one guy. Finding one guy who is capable of that is very rare now as teams strategies and structures have changed, along with the game itself. 

 

For us, our missing piece is an elite offensive defensman with size on the left side. Tanev and Gudbranson are good top-4 complimentary pieces, but we need an skilled player to play with them. Hutton - Gudbranson is already looking promising as we have hag mix of size, speed, skill, offense and defense in that pair. We just need a long term match for Tanev now on the top-pairing.  

 

In this draft, the closest defensman that fits our needs is Sergachev. His mix of size, speed and offensive ability would complement Tanev very well. This is assuming he reaches his potential though. I personally believe he will at least come close, but I understand it's a risk not many want to take. The next closest thing this draft is Bean. Again, if he reaches his potential, he would fit into our group very well. Not quite as well as Sergachev, but still good. 

[Cowichan Canuck]

2 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

I proposed going for Provorov a while back. He is now behind Gostisbehere on the left side and he would be an expensive second pairing defensman when he gets going. I understand that it's not likely, like at all, but I think he is the one elite defensman we could have a shot at through trade. 

 

I think building a well-rounded defense core is our best and most likely route. If we have 5 or even 6 guys who are all capable of contributing in some way shape or form we will be better off than pinning all our hopes on one guy. Finding one guy who is capable of that is very rare now as teams strategies and structures have changed, along with the game itself. 

 

For us, our missing piece is an elite offensive defensman with size on the left side. Tanev and Gudbranson are good top-4 complimentary pieces, but we need an skilled player to play with them. Hutton - Gudbranson is already looking promising as we have hag mix of size, speed, skill, offense and defense in that pair. We just need a long term match for Tanev now on the top-pairing.  

 

In this draft, the closest defensman that fits our needs is Sergachev. His mix of size, speed and offensive ability would complement Tanev very well. This is assuming he reaches his potential though. I personally believe he will at least come close, but I understand it's a risk not many want to take. The next closest thing this draft is Bean. Again, if he reaches his potential, he would fit into our group very well. Not quite as well as Sergachev, but still good. 

Agree with all of this. 

I overpay for Provorov. That's might sound silly, but not getting a #1D will cost us more than if we don't acquire.

You do what it takes, and move forward. He'd make you forget what it cost, and our d would be wrapped. Philly is very deficient in forward prospects, they are hugey abundant in left shot d prospects. Gostibehere is insanely good already. 

2016 1st or Demko 

2017 1st or Markstrom or Edler if waive

CBJ 2nd or Hansen 

Its a $&!# load I know. I value Provorov higher than any d prospect in the world, I don't think a prospect suites our D any better. He's just a perfect fit. Worth the payment.

Imagine a 2018 of:

Provorov-Tryamkin

Hutton-Gudbranson

Stetcher-Tanev

Brisbois

If if we MUST trade down or flog players for a 10-15 Sergachev and Bean, exactly. Fabbro if both of those are gone. Joulevi and Chychrun would be suited to other teams that already have a #1D, but looking for defensive depth (Calgary, Buffalo, Arizona)

 

We have never had a #1D, coincidentally never had a cup...how does this change, by following the same recipe? It is the most important position in hockey, and imperative to hoisting a cup.

[insomniac604]

On 6/13/2016 at 1:56 PM, Cowichan Canuck said:

I searched for a general topic and did not find one about what prospects or young dman that the Canucks could target, that could project as #1 QB defenseman. If there is a general one, just like this, please delete/lock, and my apologies.

 

As we all know, you don't win Stanley Cups without a #1 Dman. I love B Hutton, just don't see him as a future #1.

 

Which current prospects, or young players do you think are realistically attainable, that could grow with our young core when we become a contender again?

 

For me, three players come to mind.

1. Ivan Provorov, because of the emergence of Gostisbehere, both being left shot LD,  and they are already deep in D, especially LD.

2. Madison Bowey, because Washington needs to win now.

3. Seth Jones, because they need cap relief and he didn't exactly tear it up last year, still very young. A cap dump would have to come our way. Yes they just traded for him last year.

 

What would Provorov cost, that we would be willing to spend?

What would Bowey cost, that we would be willing to spend? ( I admit to not being as familiar with Bowey and I am with Provorov)

What would S Jones cost?

 

Obviously if these players are in the mix to be moved, Edmonton (and every team) is in competition in these trades and if willing to overspend could probably beat us out. Stranger things have happened, I have to think they spend as much if not more than we did for Gudbranson if they knew he was available. 

 

I would not trade Horvat straight across for either Provorov or Bowey.

Trading Boeser would be extremely hard, but only for or in a package for Provorov, wouldn't for Bowey. 

Seth Jones is a hard one to gauge for me.

 

Assets I would consider: Everything, including unprotected 2017 1st, 2016 #5, Markstrom/Demko, and all current roster players.

 

Who else is out there?

What is a realistic package for any of the ones I've mentioned?

 

Obviously you have to give to get, I understand this.

 

Provorov is not a proven #1

Neither is Bowey, and who is Bowey? lol

Seth Jones is not leaving Columbus. They just traded their #1 C to get their #1 D. Moving him would be a step backwards.

 

Please keep in mind who plays what side.

Edler plays on the left. Shattenkirk and Barrie play on the right.

Trading Edler for an unproven prospect is ridiculous, unless we get a pick+ in return.

 

 

[Lonny_Bohonos_14]

20 hours ago, Cowichan Canuck said:

I like Theodore, LB.

The other three I don't see as #1D's, if choosing of those other three I would like Lindholm.

Back to Theodore.

 

He's a perfect age to go with our young core. 20

BC boy, good frame 6'2-6'3" Left shot.

19gp 8 points +7, so not many NHL games, but good numbers in the limited time.

 

Would love to trade them Edler for him, but not sure they want that cap hit.

 

Realistically what would it take to get Theodore if they are not interested in Edler?

Hansen who is a great cap hit, Pedan, 2017 2nd and CBJ 2nd?

2017 1st and one of Pedan/Guance/Granlund, CBJ 2nd?

Ideas?

Vatanen is definitely a stretch for a #1, and likely tops out as a good top 4, maybe a top pairing guy with the right partner (probably similar to Hutton). My guess is he signs a cheap bridge deal as he hasn't really proven he's worth big bucks. That said, if his contract demands get too high, he would be the likeliest to be dealt.

 

Fowler should be considered a top pairing guy (not a true #1), and is still young enough that he could take that extra step. 2 more years at 4 million is quite reasonable for what he brings right now. Last year Fowler led the team with almost 23 minutes per game, including 2:10 SH/TOI along with 2:59 PP/TOI

 

Theodore will likely be the hardest to pry out of Anaheim. He's cheap (ELC), young and really good. It would take an overpay similar to Provorov. And with either of those deals, you're gambling on potential -- it's a good gamble either way, but they may not break 'top 4' status.

 

I think Lindholm is very underrated. He's not the most noticeable guy on the ice, but he quietly does his thing. He was second on the ducks with 22 minutes per game (2:09 SH/TOI with 2:02 PP/TOI). He was a 6th overall pick in 2012 and is only 22. His RFA status allows for a little more leverage than the others (minus Vatanen). He won't be cheap, but threaten an offer sheet and the Ducks may bend. 

The 2015 Offer Sheet Compensation for an offer between $5,478,986 and $7,305,316 was a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I would do that all day for Lindholm.

 

Edler - Tanev

Lindholm - Gudbranson

Hutton - Tryamkin

Sbisa, Larsen, Pedan or Biega

 

 

 

[Cowichan Canuck]

1 hour ago, Lonny_Bohonos_14 said:

Vatanen is definitely a stretch for a #1, and likely tops out as a good top 4, maybe a top pairing guy with the right partner (probably similar to Hutton). My guess is he signs a cheap bridge deal as he hasn't really proven he's worth big bucks. That said, if his contract demands get too high, he would be the likeliest to be dealt.

 

Fowler should be considered a top pairing guy (not a true #1), and is still young enough that he could take that extra step. 2 more years at 4 million is quite reasonable for what he brings right now. Last year Fowler led the team with almost 23 minutes per game, including 2:10 SH/TOI along with 2:59 PP/TOI

 

Theodore will likely be the hardest to pry out of Anaheim. He's cheap (ELC), young and really good. It would take an overpay similar to Provorov. And with either of those deals, you're gambling on potential -- it's a good gamble either way, but they may not break 'top 4' status.

 

I think Lindholm is very underrated. He's not the most noticeable guy on the ice, but he quietly does his thing. He was second on the ducks with 22 minutes per game (2:09 SH/TOI with 2:02 PP/TOI). He was a 6th overall pick in 2012 and is only 22. His RFA status allows for a little more leverage than the others (minus Vatanen). He won't be cheap, but threaten an offer sheet and the Ducks may bend. 

The 2015 Offer Sheet Compensation for an offer between $5,478,986 and $7,305,316 was a 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I would do that all day for Lindholm.

 

Edler - Tanev

Lindholm - Gudbranson

Hutton - Tryamkin

Sbisa, Larsen, Pedan or Biega

 

 

 

Offer sheeting is just so grubby. I'm afraid of (an assumtion i admit) Benning being blacklisted by other GM's for a tactic like this.

 

So, No consequences of an assumption like mine, I do that for both Seth Jones and Lindholm, and trade Tanev, Edler and Sbisa towards a #1C

Lindholm-Jones

Hutton-Gudbranson

Hamhuis-Tryamkin

Larsen, Pedan

 

Not a hope in hell, but I don't believe in hell anyways.

 

[86Viking]

columbus has a nice list of teams from Hartnell. It all but assures they move him for likely a pick or prospect. they may even add to hartnell as a thank you for taking on his contract.

 

If we could send them 1yr of burrows or higgins I would take hartnell depending what the plus was they would be willing to add. hartnell is a good net front presence for the PP and his foot speed would slot in well with the twins if we wanted to try and inflate his offensive numbers.

 

As for #1 D, hard to get, we should be looking to move Edler to a team wanting a more now ready D for a younger one. Edler may be part of the package even depending who it is we target. Got to get him to waive his NTC. Benning is 2/2 in doing so with D so far since he came here, will he do it again?