AC Readership Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Alflives said: Could we trade one of our top forwards for a top (young) D? Kind of how Columbus got Seth Jones? No one really wants to trade Bo (I even think it’s sinful to suggest) but if we could get a young number one dman in return do we consider it? Yes x3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isam Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Could we trade one of our top forwards for a top (young) D? Kind of how Columbus got Seth Jones? No one really wants to trade Bo (I even think it’s sinful to suggest) but if we could get a young number one dman in return do we consider it? We are not in a position to do that yet. As good as our prospects and young players are right now, they are still yet unproven. We would need one of them to hit like Johansen or hall before we could atleast even attempt a trade for a Seth Jones caliber type of dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Could we trade one of our top forwards for a top (young) D? Kind of how Columbus got Seth Jones? No one really wants to trade Bo (I even think it’s sinful to suggest) but if we could get a young number one dman in return do we consider it? Ok I can see if we want to package up BO or Brock, thats who they will want for a top flight D man. I think trying to trade for top 2 D is not realistic or Edmonton would have had one by now. We have maybe three players they will ask for four if you include Demko. If you are a team that has a stud D man, what are you going to do once you trade your top 1 or2 D man. Do you have someone to replace him? And what assestts do we have to trade? Do you want to give up Petterson? No disrespect Alf, the way i see it is this is the way the Oilers got into trouble. They kept saying we are taking the best player available.... we took Yakupov, the took RNH they kept taking forwards and didn't invest in their blue line thus the one and done year last year because they have no real NHL blue-liners. and it will take 4 years to develop them to be decent. Unless they do as they always do and throw the kid into the lineup at 19 and expect him to become Larry Robinson overnight. Why would we trade one of our top forwards for something we can draft this year?again no offense but i don't understand that thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Alflives said: Could we trade one of our top forwards for a top (young) D? Kind of how Columbus got Seth Jones? No one really wants to trade Bo (I even think it’s sinful to suggest) but if we could get a young number one dman in return do we consider it? Boeser, Horvat or Petterson. Who would you give up? I'd not lose any of them honestly. We don't have the depth yet to make that play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isam Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said: That is what this team needs. More dynamic skill man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, AC Readership said: Yes x3 why trade a foundational piece for something you can draft for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Just now, Isam said: That is what this team needs. More dynamic skill man. This is what we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Isam said: We are not in a position to do that yet. As good as our prospects and young players are right now, they are still yet unproven. We would need one of them to hit like Johansen or hall before we could atleast even attempt a trade for a Seth Jones caliber type of dman. Hence why a Tanev trade and continuing to draft D makes sense IMO. Trade Tanev for a young 20-something, potential top 4 D prospect and a 1st. Draft a Dahlin/Boqvist/Hughes/Bouchard/Dobson with our 1st, one of the mid 1st D available with the acquired first and cross our fingers that between them, Juolevi, Tryamkin etc we have at least 3'ish guys who can form a future top 4 (with maybe a 'surprise' guy like Rathbone filling it out or a key trade or UFA in a few years, if required). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, Alflives said: Could we trade one of our top forwards for a top (young) D? Kind of how Columbus got Seth Jones? No one really wants to trade Bo (I even think it’s sinful to suggest) but if we could get a young number one dman in return do we consider it? No. We don't yet have the depth to loose one of our big 3 future core forwards. Bo, Boes, and Pet are all very important parts of our rebuild moving forward. If we are looking at a 2nd tier forward like Virt (though I would be devistated and think it's a bad idea), Lind, Gold, Dalhen, Gadj etc I would be more open to the idea. We are simply not in the position for a Jones like hockey trade yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, mikeyman109 said: why trade a foundational piece for something you can draft for free? Bo is coming 23. If we draft a dman, not named Dhalin, he’s likely going to take 5-7 years to mature into a dominant player. Bo might not even be with our team then. Bo is worth A LOT in trade, and could certainly return a Seth Jones level of dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC Readership Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, mikeyman109 said: why trade a foundational piece for something you can draft for free? Drafting for need is the wrong line of thinking. If the Canucks got the 2nd overall pick who do you take, a D or the BPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Alflives said: Bo is coming 23. If we draft a dman, not named Dhalin, he’s likely going to take 5-7 years to mature into a dominant player. Bo might not even be with our team then. Bo is worth A LOT in trade, and could certainly return a Seth Jones level of dman. If we draft a D man in this first round its more likely to take three to five years. Bo will be 26-28. I agree D take longer to develop thus the need to draft them this year. Trading Bo isnt a very smart idea.He is our best faceoff man and plays the 200 foot game better than any other player on our roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 minute ago, AC Readership said: Drafting for need is the wrong line of thinking. If the Canucks got the 2nd overall pick who do you take, a D or the BPA? I guess that depends on who you think is the BPA, just because someone ranks Zadina over Boqvist doesn't mean they are correct. Yakupov anyone? Or Petr Nedved over Jagr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: If we draft a D man in this first round its more likely to take three to five years. Bo will be 26-28. I agree D take longer to develop thus the need to draft them this year. Trading Bo isnt a very smart idea.He is our best faceoff man and plays the 200 foot game better than any other player on our roster. I love Bo, but (kind of) worry our much needed D will not be fully developed before Bo is gone. The Bruins signed Chara as a UFA, so maybe we could do that? what about tossing a ton of cash at EK or Doughty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isam Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 23 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: This is what we need. Watched both alot and I like Bouchard,, but you are undervaluing boqvist alot Mikey. Put it this way, every time boqvist has played best on best with Sweden, he hasn't looked out of place. He has put up better numbers at the hlinka then Bouchard, did ok in limited minutes with men, and has put as good of numbers as an did karlsson in his draft year if not better in the superelit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said: I guess that depends on who you think is the BPA, just because someone ranks Zadina over Boqvist doesn't mean they are correct. Yakupov anyone? Or Petr Nedved over Jagr? If we get second overall, maybe it’s best (if possible) to trade down? Or do we take Zadina or Tkatchuk and then move a top prospect for the top dman? I guess there are a lot of scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Just now, Alflives said: I love Bo, but (kind of) worry our much needed D will not be fully developed before Bo is gone. The Bruins signed Chara as a UFA, so maybe we could do that? what about tossing a ton of cash at EK or Doughty? I think that is just an impatient attempt to try to rebuild faster than this city has patience for. Its been our Achilles heel forever. We don't have the patience to draft and build the team. We want what we see happening on other teams and want to do it now thus overpaying in monetary and players. Other teams over the years have thrived on picking us apart that way. Neely for Pederson We need to stay the course, draft to what fits our team best and look at all options to improve in our timeline. Again no disrespect for another opinion but mine is draft, draft, draft. and if you don't want to watch for the four years or so it takes to build a team then go watch the leafs. they are on every Saturday night on CBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, AC Readership said: Drafting for need is the wrong line of thinking. If the Canucks got the 2nd overall pick who do you take, a D or the BPA? The 2nd pick is likely the only one I'd 100% take the forward over a D if I'm the Canucks (assuming we're picking somewhere between 1-5 depending on lotto). I could see Boqvist going before Zadina at 3, whether that's us or someone else. Only other spot would be Wahlstrom if both Boqvist and Hughes are gone but that would have to be 6th pick and unlikely both D would be gone by then. Never mind I don't think we're trending to have that low of a pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, Alflives said: If we get second overall, maybe it’s best (if possible) to trade down? Or do we take Zadina or Tkatchuk and then move a top prospect for the top dman? I guess there are a lot of scenarios? I dont disagree its possible to draft a player then trade a player but I am again asking who will want to give up a future top 2 D man. Karlsson and or a Doughty will be on their last legs is 4 years when everything comes around. I think anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Just now, aGENT said: The 2nd pick is likely the only one I'd 100% take the forward over a D if I'm the Canucks (assuming we're picking somewhere between 1-5 depending on lotto). I could see Boqvist going before Zadina at 3, whether that's us or someone else. Only other spot would be Wahlstrom if both Boqvist and Hughes are gone but that would have to be 6th pick and unlikely both D would be gone by then. Never mind I don't think we're trending to have that low of a pick This i agree with . I know we disagree on the who after that but all respect to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.