Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] Trade with Chicago for 3rd overall


Recommended Posts

Trade proposal 

To Chicago- Dipietro or Demko , 10th overall and juolevi

 

To Canucks- third overall pick

 

(preferably Dipietro, demko is further ahead in development and while markstrom made huge strides this year I'm not completely sold on him yet, too small of a sample size)

 

Hawks still need d prospects, 10th overall and Juolevi gives them two solid ones (I still feel juolevi will be a good top 4) 

 

Benning has said that unless someone slides then there is no game changing dmen available at 10

 

Crawford is 33 which gives dipietro plenty of time to develop and hawks have 0 promising goalie prospects

 

Canuck get the hometown boy 

 

I have issues seeing how this deal isn't good for both sides.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in fact hawks do not need d

if they did they'd keep that draft slot and take byram

rather then move it for a bundle of lesser talent

the fav type of trade proposal from most posters on here

 

please list all the high end d prospects they have

and then tell me why they still need more

and would downgrade that need by trading the top dman

for lesser players

 

the details count in all these posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

Major PASS. 

 

You're giving away 3 potentially rock-solid players for 1? 

 

Not wise, in my opinion. 

Byram has a much higher ceiling then juolevi, and any dman we take with that 10th pick. Unless boldy or maybe caufield slides. Dipietro is a great prospect but both teams have to benefit from an NHL trade, gotta give to get. Canucks need more top end talent from the back end, only top end guy is Hughes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

in fact hawks do not need d

if they did they'd keep that draft slot and take byram

rather then move it for a bundle of lesser talent

the fav type of trade proposal from most posters on here

 

please list all the high end d prospects they have

and then tell me why they still need more

and would downgrade that need by trading the top dman

for lesser players

 

the details count in all these posts

Regardless they need a future goalie, and with the 10th it gives them the option of drafting a forward or a d.

 

Tough to argue this isn't fair value for both teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

I understand you have to give to get, but I personally wouldn't pull the trigger on that trade. 

It's very good value for them sides and there really isn't such a thing as the "perfect" nhl trade. Either give up a few assets and take a chance on what could be a game breaking defenceman or play it safe. Canucks have played It safe for long enough, last big trade was Kesler, we need another big time guy on the back end 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unequivocal No! 

 

Giving up a potential franchise goalie,  a top 6 forward or a top 4 defenseman (10th overall) and another potential top 4 do in OJ would be disastrous at this point in the rebuild imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NucksRmylife said:

Regardless they need a future goalie, and with the 10th it gives them the option of drafting a forward or a d.

 

Tough to argue this isn't fair value for both teams. 

but you are avoiding my comments

and keeping juolevi in the proposal as well

all based on your mistaken premise that hawks need d

 

if they need d.. they will use the 3oa and draft the best one in this draft

why would hawks water down the quality of the player they drafted for a need they don't have ???

 

they can draft a goalie with their next draft pick in the next round

you are blindered looking at this only as a nuck fan

completely unrealistic

tell me why hawks appear to make this trade for your last remaining reason that they need a goalie (to develop)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Byram, but he's no Dahlin. If it made sense to move up to nab him then sure, but moving a potential starting goalie, a dman that could be just as good or maybe a step below and lose out on a decent player at #10 doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NucksRmylife said:

Regardless they need a future goalie, and with the 10th it gives them the option of drafting a forward or a d.

 

Tough to argue this isn't fair value for both teams. 

I'm sorry, but this is not good value for both teams. You are putting all the eggs in one basket with this trade. I will not pull the trigger on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I like Byram, but he's no Dahlin. If it made sense to move up to nab him then sure, but moving a potential starting goalie, a dman that could be just as good or maybe a step below and lose out on a decent player at #10 doesn't make sense to me.

Theres a big difference  between good players and game changers. I definitely wouldn't call juolevi "just a step below" I think hell be a good top 4 but byram as of now definitely has a higher ceiling... in order to make trades, you trade what you have excess of....ie dipietro. I'm not saying byram is dahlen and he definitely won't be that good, but hell have a far higher ceiling then whatever dman is available at 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This actually belongs in the Proposals and Armchair GM forum - it's not a Trade, .Rumour or Signing.

 

That said I'm no fan of blowing that kind of value to move up.

 

Hang onto our 'bluechip' goaltenders, give Juolevi a chance to prove himself at the NHL level - and take the best player at 10.

 

There may not be a 'game changing' D at 10, and I haven't heard the comment you're referring to, but perhaps a 'game changer' isn't necessarily what the team needs - and maybe Hughes is that puck mover - but if the team wound up with a Soderstrom or Seider at 10, I'm fine with that.  You never really know until you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

Unequivocal No! 

 

Giving up a potential franchise goalie,  a top 6 forward or a top 4 defenseman (10th overall) and another potential top 4 do in OJ would be disastrous at this point in the rebuild imo. 

And byram isn't a potential top 2 dman? When making trades, you trade from excess... which is why I included dipietro. Plus high profile dmen are much harder to acquire then top 6 forwards... cant just win every trade, Chicago has to have good value in the trade as well. Like I said, unless a couple players slide, at 10, theres isn't any game changers available. If those players slide then yes keep the pic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This actually belongs in the Proposals and Armchair GM forum - it's not a Trade, .Rumour or Signing.

 

That said I'm no fan of blowing that kind of value to move up.

 

Hang onto our 'bluechip' goaltenders, give Juolevi a chance to prove himself at the NHL level - and take the best player at 10.

 

There may not be a 'game changing' D at 10, and I haven't heard the comment you're referring to, but perhaps a 'game changer' isn't necessarily what the team needs - and maybe Hughes is that puck mover - but if the team wound up with a Soderstrom or Seider at 10, I'm fine with that.  You never really know until you know.

I disagree. Hawks as of now have 0 goalie prospects, and we can afford to trade dipietro as of now considering we have demko. Byram has a much higher ceiling then any d prospect we draft at 10, and if a forward slides down then sure, keep the pic. But I feel theres too many people on this site that just look for the "perfect" trade and that doesnt happen in the nhl. While both teams have to benefit, down the road one team generally benefits more then the other. Juolevi isn't flashy, definitely doesnt have the same ceiling as byram 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This actually belongs in the Proposals and Armchair GM forum - it's not a Trade, .Rumour or Signing.

 

That said I'm no fan of blowing that kind of value to move up.

 

Hang onto our 'bluechip' goaltenders, give Juolevi a chance to prove himself at the NHL level - and take the best player at 10.

 

There may not be a 'game changing' D at 10, and I haven't heard the comment you're referring to, but perhaps a 'game changer' isn't necessarily what the team needs - and maybe Hughes is that puck mover - but if the team wound up with a Soderstrom or Seider at 10, I'm fine with that.  You never really know until you know.

Not to be rude but I think saying "a gamechanger isn't necessarily what the team needs" is ridiculous. Every team could always use a game changer... and if theres a chance to get one you do it as long as its solid value. I would rather have one game changing d prospect then two good d prospects...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NucksRmylife said:

Not to be rude but I think saying "a gamechanger isn't necessarily what the team needs" is ridiculous. Every team could always use a game changer... and if theres a chance to get one you do it as long as its solid value. I would rather have one game changing d prospect then two good d prospects...

Not to be rude, but "game changer' is a meaningless catch-phrase.  What exactly is that supposed to mean?   Where is the line between a D that doesn't 'change the game' and one that does?  It's about as meaningless as "generational" player has become - there seems to be a new 'generational' talent in every draft.   "Game changer" = okay whatever.    Like I said - this team could already have it's 'game changer' - depending on whatever that is supposed to mean.  

 

Before anyone can make a meaningless statement like "I'd rather have a game changer than two good prospects" you'd have to get a hell of a lot more specific about who those 'average prospects' are, and what makes the 'game changer' have greater value than the two combined.   The best defenseman in this discussion could be the one that hasn't even been named yet.  People get carried away often with the idea that a draft pedigree player is necessarily going to be the best player in the discussion.  Look back on a lot of drafts and the first defenseman taken doesn't necessarily turn out to be the best defenseman in due course.

 

Don't take Benning at his word when it comes to the draft - it's the one time of year he runs an uncharacteristic amount of misdirection and sets aside his 'straight-shooting' reputation.

 

In any event, I don't like the value you're giving up to move up - simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...