[Discussion] Lateral prospect trades

[The_Rocket]

As it sits right now, the Canucks have numerous good winger prospects under the age of 22 in their pipeline (Boeser, Virtanen, Goldobin, Dahlen, Lockwood, Lind, Gadjovich) but only 1 good D prospects that age (joulevi).

 

Would you be in favour of trading a winger prospect for a D prospect? For example Gudbransen + Gadjovich for liljigren (this is just an example, there are probably better trades). The prospect pool wouldn’t grow bigger, but it does become more diverse. 

 

I know the Canucks do have Chatfield and Brisbois as well, but compared to the wingers I listed, these players are much weaker prospects. 

[kloubek]

100% yes.  In fact, I'm willing to guess this is exactly what we will do.  If our group of young guys will be competing in the playoffs in a couple of years (which they will), we will have too many.  But we do need to build our defense in the meantime.  We can draft the d, but that generally takes a few years before they are ready and contributing well so that leaves us trade options, or UFA.  You always overpay for UFA and rarely do the young #1 defensemen we need come up in UFA anyway, so therefore I believe that Benning will absolutely trade a couple of our excess forwards (and perhaps a roster defenseman) to acquire a young defenseman (or two) with upside.

[Rabbit]

We have lots of young forwarders in the pipeline. Good suggestion to trade and improve our weak d-man.

[Nucker 67]

EDM has been dealing with this issue the last couple of years. Trading off their 1st overall forwards for average D. Canucks are in a better position though, as at least we have Juolevi and Chatfield in the mix. I wouldn't be opposed to trading Goldobin, Lockwood or Palmu etc. in a package deal.

[mll]

1 minute ago, NUCKER67 said:

EDM has been dealing with this issue the last couple of years. Trading off their 1st overall forwards for average D. Canucks are in a better position though, as at least we have Juolevi and Chatfield in the mix. I wouldn't be opposed to trading Goldobin, Lockwood or Palmu etc. in a package deal.

Why would teams give up one good prospect for two lesser ones.  They have a better chance of getting a player out of one good prospect than two average ones.  It's the same as all those proposals 2 roster players for an upgrade - why would a team bring in two players who cost more combined than the better player they would be giving up. 

[chon derry]

there does seem to be a few players that have been in Utica  a while ,not so much stagnating but just not ever able to make the next step, so to be fair to them they should be moved if it makes sense for the big team as well as maybe finding a better opportunity for them going forward. archibald this guy needs to be brought up when possible. was hoping JV would provide a little more grit than he's shown , Darren archibalds game IS grit

[Nucker 67]

5 minutes ago, mll said:

Why would teams give up one good prospect for two lesser ones.  They have a better chance of getting a player out of one good prospect than two average ones.  It's the same as all those proposals 2 roster players for an upgrade - why would a team bring in two players who cost more combined than the better player they would be giving up. 

Who's saying Goldobin, Lockwood and/or Palmu are "lesser"? There might be teams who have a decent D prospect they can afford to trade for a good prospect winger or two, they might need. 

[86Viking]

We need to target playoff teams like Nashville, St louis, Tampa, Washington etc etc who have some young almost nhl ready D. If it means we send them a pending UFA or a younger F like Granlund/Goldobin.

 

I also would look at maybe send Goldy in a package to Washington for Burakovsky. That or send him to Tampa a team with russians who seem to know how to develop them or get them playing the style of game they want.

[mll]

44 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Who's saying Goldobin, Lockwood and/or Palmu are "lesser"? There might be teams who have a decent D prospect they can afford to trade for a good prospect winger or two, they might need. 

One for one.  But why would they do a package - if two players are worth one than the two are worth less individually than the one re lesser.

 

[-AJ-]

Yep. I would definitely be down to sacrifice a forward prospect for a D prospect if we could get that done. Fills a need for sure.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Canadian Clay said:

As it sits right now, the Canucks have numerous good winger prospects under the age of 22 in their pipeline (Boeser, Virtanen, Goldobin, Dahlen, Lockwood, Lind, Gadjovich) but only 1 good D prospects that age (joulevi).

 

Would you be in favour of trading a winger prospect for a D prospect? For example Gudbransen + Gadjovich for liljigren (this is just an example, there are probably better trades). The prospect pool wouldn’t grow bigger, but it does become more diverse. 

 

I know the Canucks do have Chatfield and Brisbois as well, but compared to the wingers I listed, these players are much weaker prospects. 

I don't think so. We're not so deep with proven skill yet that I think we can afford to trade any of these guys at this point, we just don't know which ones will emerge to even be as good as Baer or Granny e.g. and odds are all of them won't make it. 

 

This might be where the Pouliot trade may really be important. If he continues to improve and Juolevi and Holm are ready to play it doesn't look too disastrous going into next season. If Tryamkin's team collapses we might have that option back too. Stecher, Tanev and Edler are all likely back as well. 

 

I'd prefer we dip into free agency for short term D at this point vs. trading off any winger depth that may or not be there. 

[PunjabiCanucks]

Horvat / Pettersson/ Boeser are the only locks for sure on this team. Gaudette may be a lock by next year.

 

Everyone else could be traded accordingly in order to improve our D.

 

In 5 years maybe DiPietro gets traded if his value is high enough and Demko is playing his A game.

[Crabcakes]

Like Subban for Dowd......except in reverse.....I think Jimbo gets it

[Dixon Ward]

Last year GMJB used the Trade Deadline and the Draft to get offense into the pipeline.

 

Goldobin, Dahlen, Petersson, Lind, Gadjovich

 

With Demko and Dipietro in the system, we can hold off on goalies.

 

This year it has to be primarily about Defense.  However, it is still nice to take the BPA.

 

With that in mind, i hope that he can pull off a trade for one of the following RH offensive Defensmen at the Trade Deadline to allow him more flexibility at the draft.

 

Liljegren

Fabbro

Foote

Jokiharju

 

If we had 

Juolevi Foote

Tryamkin Stecher

Hutton Pouliot

Brisebois Chatfield

 

We could still take a defensemen but could have less pressure and take the BPA.

 

MDZ + Vanek to Chi for Jokiharju if they are in the hunt for the playoffs

 

Gudbransson + Vanek and 3rd to Toronto for Liljgren

 

Edler or Tanev + Vanek to TBL for Cal Foote

 

Sutter + 2nd to Nash for Fabbro

 

Flame away on the trades, I made them up quickly, but my point stands about flexibility and trying to fill the cupboards a bit before the draft.

[Patrick Kane]

6 minutes ago, Dixon Ward said:

We could still take a defensemen but could have less pressure and take the BPA.

 

MDZ + Vanek to Chi for Jokiharju if they are in the hunt for the playoffs

 

Gudbransson + Vanek and 3rd to Toronto for Liljgren

 

Edler or Tanev + Vanek to TBL for Cal Foote

 

Sutter + 2nd to Nash for Fabbro

 

Flame away on the trades, I made them up quickly, but my point stands about flexibility and trying to fill the cupboards a bit before the draft.

None of those trades would be accepted.

[Dixon Ward]

7 minutes ago, Patrick Kane said:

None of those trades would be accepted.

Neither I, nor you, know what GM's would give up.  I would never have thought that Burrows would garner Dahlen.  I also was very clear that these were hastily prepared.

 

However, I was looking on the HFBoards and Tampa fans were saying that they would give up Foote and a 3rd for Tanev.  

 

Anyway, the trades were secondary to my point.  Try to get a bluechip RHD prospect in a trade and then take the pressure off the draft and take BPA.

[mll]

28 minutes ago, Dixon Ward said:

Neither I, nor you, know what GM's would give up.  I would never have thought that Burrows would garner Dahlen.  I also was very clear that these were hastily prepared.

 

However, I was looking on the HFBoards and Tampa fans were saying that they would give up Foote and a 3rd for Tanev.  

 

Anyway, the trades were secondary to my point.  Try to get a bluechip RHD prospect in a trade and then take the pressure off the draft and take BPA.

Dahlen was not one of Ottawa's top prospects.  At the trade Dorion talked about how they had a handful of prospects that they would never trade and said that Dahlen was not part of that group.  Those proposals are to get each team's best prospect.  Benning is not going to be able to get a bluechip RHD prospect with the players he is willing to part with - the guys that could bring that kind of return are not available.

 

[Crabcakes]

46 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think so. We're not so deep with proven skill yet that I think we can afford to trade any of these guys at this point, we just don't know which ones will emerge to even be as good as Baer or Granny e.g. and odds are all of them won't make it. 

 

This might be where the Pouliot trade may really be important. If he continues to improve and Juolevi and Holm are ready to play it doesn't look too disastrous going into next season. If Tryamkin's team collapses we might have that option back too. Stecher, Tanev and Edler are all likely back as well. 

 

I'd prefer we dip into free agency for short term D at this point vs. trading off any winger depth that may or not be there. 

The thing is, you never know how the prospects are going to develop.  There needs to be a trigger to move some of these kids; circumstances have to be right.

 

Pouliot didn't move until Pitt was faced with deciding whether to play him or waive him.  This is why, he was moved by Pittsburgh at age 23.  When the Canucks wanted to trade Kesler to Pitt and have Pouliot as a major piece coming back 3 years ago or so, it was a no go.  Then there was plenty of upside and no pressure.   

 

Subban must have been asked for by LA in the Dowd deal because maybe they don't have a lot of similar prospects.  So this deal was done because JB really needed centre depth at the time (Horvat and Sutter injured)

 

Otherwise, I think GM's are hesitant to move kids because they have invested a lot in their development and it would really suck if they sold low on a kid.

 

A good example of a surprise is Zack MacEwen who was playing Junior A 3 years ago and is now in his 1st year of pro in Utica.  He has an awesome attitude according to Ryan Johnson and is developing very fast.  The 6'4" 212 lber has 20 points in 35 games and is now starting to look like he might become a player.  The point is, you can never tell how these kids are going to develop.   

 

Fwiw, Cole Cassels looks like he's finally coming back.  

 

I'm happy with Benning being patient and poaching kids when other teams find themselves in a jam.  It's usually the team that needs to make the trade who loses.  

[Dixon Ward]

18 minutes ago, mll said:

Dahlen was not one Ottawa's top prospects.  At the trade Dorion talked about how they had a handful of prospects that they would never trade and said that Dahlen was not part of that group.  Those proposals are to get each team's best prospect.  Benning is not going to be able to get a bluechip RHD prospect with the players he is willing to part with - the guys that could bring that kind of return are not available.

 

Jokiharju is listed as Chicago's 4th prospect on the nhl.com list I saw from last summer, Fabbro 3rd on Nashville, Cal Foote 5th on Tampa, Liljgren 5th.  These lists might be total bullpoop and I am not saying that my trades are valid.  I am saying that we should target one of these guys at the Trade Deadline.  I would rather pool our chips and get a meaningful piece than trade Vanek and Gudbranson separately and get a 3rd and 2nd.

 

PS When we got Dahlen for Burrows we were all pretty pumped and surprised that we did, that is all I am saying. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

Dixon, CC and Jimmy, great points and counter points.....well worth reading

 

I am not sure if we could get any of those defenders, without giving up something really good back

 

Defensemen, are so hard to develop, and as it was said, once your start developing a player, you better be getting something good back

 

This year, there are so many defencemen in the draft, it may be better to go and get another 1st, and pick 2 in the first round

 

To me, I would trade Edler, Gudbranson or Hutton with Goldobin for another 1st, "IF" possible, and then overpay for a UFA Dman, short term

 

There are teams near the top that would consider it. it may even take a 2019 2nd to sweeten the pot....big over payment now, but you don't normally see this many D-prospects

in the top 40  in a draft. Bite the bullet! I salivate over this possibility!

 

With 2 young goalies, Horvat, Pettersson, and Gaudette down the middle, and Boeser, Lind, Dahlen, Virtanen, Goldobin,Gaunce, Baertschi, and Granlund

 

and only having Joulevi, Hutton, Stecher, Gudbranson and possibly Pouliot, that are really NHL'ers.......maybe 1 top-2 out of that bunch.................we need to absolutely take advantage of this draft....... and/or get one of the earlier mentioned Dmen prospects (I just don't see anyone giving one of those up)