PunjabiCanucks Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 TBH I would rather not trade our #5 pick. I'd rather trade Tanev/ Edler/ Virtanen/ Sbisa/ our 2nd rd and later picks for the 3rd OA . The 1st OA will cost so much and the marginal benefit isn't worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 GM's wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't make a call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 If JB could get the #3 without giving up Horvat, Boeser, Dahlen, Gaudette, Stecher, Juolevi or Demko, then I would be okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny in Vancouver Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 17 minutes ago, on the cycle said: Drouin is better than anyone in this years draft. Right now or ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny in Vancouver Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 1 minute ago, NUCKER67 said: If JB could get the #3 without giving up Horvat, Boeser, Dahlen, Gaudette, Stecher, Juolevi or Demko, then I would be okay with that. I doubt you'll be ok with #5 + Tanev + Hutton + Virtanen + Baertschi + Goldobin ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Hischier is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on the cycle Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 22 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said: Right now or ever? I would say ever. Drouin is already a first line player and no one in this draft is a lock to be a first liner. Drouin in his draft year was touted as a sure fire top line players who could be a superstar. From all the scouting reports and what I have seen there are some pretty great prospects this year but no one seems to believe that anyone in this draft has superstar or even point per game potential. I hope they're wrong but there seems to be a strong consensus that, that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said: I doubt you'll be ok with #5 + Tanev + Hutton + Virtanen + Baertschi + Goldobin ... You are correct, trading the rest of the team wouldn't fly either. But I would be okay with the #5, Virtanen and Sutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 The prospects ranked #1 and #2 are said to be NHL ready and could play next year. In 3-5 years time if a team has patience, it could be debatable who should of been the number one pick so I'm happy keeping number 5 and making a very good pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 33 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said: By this logic, why bother with high picks at all? Let's just trade them all for 6th rounders! I mean, hey, those 6th rounders can be just as good as the #1 overall pick! But, seriously, the #1 is worth more than the #5. A lot more. Suggesting it's not is ridiculous. And, that isn't just an opinion. We can actually figure out exactly how much more the pick is worth. [That link should really be stickied, seeing as absolutely no one understands the true value of draft picks around here] The #1 pick is worth a Top-3 forward or Top-2 defenseman. The #5 pick is only worth a Top-7 forward or a Top-5 defenseman. It's actually a humongous difference. So, yes, the #5 pick could be better than the #1. It almost surely won't, but it could... batting .1000 the last few days.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 pre lottery canucks would never trade down if they draft 1st or 2nd. you would only get a 2nd or b prospect if you traded down to 5th or 6th post lottery i think virtanen/sutter/hutton/tanev our 5th overall and more is worth moving up to 1st overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodycanuckleheads Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, Warhippy said: batting .1000 the last few days.... So, wait... You disagree with what I said??? You think the #5 is every bit as good as #1? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said: So, wait... You disagree with what I said??? You think the #5 is every bit as good as #1? Really? You mean that the 1st overall pick is worth a lottery pick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodycanuckleheads Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 What on Earth are you talking about? Are you still harassing me for using the term 'lottery pick' to mean any top pick? That's a common usage of the term. It's common to use the term - even when speaking about drafts in sports that don't even have lotteries. And especially in sports that have lotteries some years, and no lottery in others, like the NHL. Just because you disagree with what I say, and can't actually attack my positions, do you really have to resort to nitpicking through my comments for anything you could conceivably claim is wrong (even if the way I was using the term wasn't actually incorrect)? Again, you'll notice that I don't pick through your comments looking for spelling or grammar errors. We'd be here all day if I did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 Asking price would at least be 5th overall, 33rd overall, and probably Tanev. Not worth it at all. Glass could be just as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblix Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said: Asking price would at least be 5th overall, 33rd overall, and probably Tanev. Not worth it at all. Glass could be just as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 40 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said: What on Earth are you talking about? Are you still harassing me for using the term 'lottery pick' to mean any top pick? That's a common usage of the term. It's common to use the term - even when speaking about drafts in sports that don't even have lotteries. And especially in sports that have lotteries some years, and no lottery in others, like the NHL. Just because you disagree with what I say, and can't actually attack my positions, do you really have to resort to nitpicking through my comments for anything you could conceivably claim is wrong (even if the way I was using the term wasn't actually incorrect)? Again, you'll notice that I don't pick through your comments looking for spelling or grammar errors. We'd be here all day if I did... No...no man. When a lottery has been completed and draft selection is finalized it is no longer a "lottery pick" much like when you purchase a lottery ticket; after the draw has been made it is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, it is no longer a lottery ticket. And I am actually now doing this because your posts are kind of single source finger pointing blaming and have little substance. Because Benning did, and Gillis didn't and prospect X or Y Has literally nothing to do with spelling errors or grammatical issues at all. Just the substance You can go ahead though, seems you've got the time to fabricate history because you don't like the GM so; feel free to go through my content. I won't charge you for the pleasure of it Edit* It's nothing personal, just tired of seeing people blaming everyone for everything and writing off the last few drafts/prospects without ever waiting even a minimal amount of time to see where this team is heading in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Where'd Luongo? said: Though it's likely they will keep the pick and bolster their centre position, Shero said he has received some calls regarding teams trying to acquire the pick. Any likely trade would probably have to include a top 2 defender, top 6 center, or a top 4 defender + a good pick. Would the Canucks be interested? Yes. Should the Canucks be interested? Yes. Can the Canucks pay the price? Maybe. They have Tanev, Sbisa and Gudbranson on the right side where help is most needed for NJ. Any of those players would likely need an additional pick attached to them in order to fetch the #1 pick. Other teams of interest (in my opinion): - Montreal (no 1st line centre and quite a few defensemen) - Colorado (Perhaps Duchene or Landeskog) Please include a linkable source next time. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedinyoureyesontheprize Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 People need to include jake and Hutton in our group moving fwd. Both still young and oozing with potential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where'd Luongo? Posted May 29, 2017 Author Share Posted May 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: Please include a linkable source next time. Thanks. I would but it didn't say anything more than what I wrote. I will next time I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.