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

[Discussion] Acquiring Draft Picks


Recommended Posts

With JB’s recent additions this offseason, I think most of us know that this team can be very competitive for the next few years. Our prospect pool is looking pretty good right now with Juolevi, Woo, Madden, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Keppen, Lind, Gadjovich, Lockwood, DiPietro, etc.   

 

That being said, the cupboard is never full and losing a 1st for Miller wasn’t ideal. I know we aren’t in the position to get that pick back but if we could get rid of some loose ends or prospects that might not fit, it was be wise for JB to stack up some draft capital for next year and keep this team rolling for a very long time. Thoughts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s more something that would be saved until draft day, or close to it. Right now, we don’t know which prospects will flourish, flop, or otherwise surprise us, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a prospect for pick trade. 

 

On the other hand, if we could start Gaudette in Utica playing on the top line so he could get some good offensive minutes, I could see Sutter or Beagle becoming expendable. Either of these to a playoff team with enough space could bring us a 3rd round pick. 

 

What if we mixed the two? Say we trade Sutter and Goldobin to Carolina for a second round pick in December?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ButterBean said:

Well that came out wrong. I was a big fan of the Miller trade, I was just wondering if we could stack some draft capital to make up for it. 

cheers

good to clarify that point

i think the miller trade was excellent

he will help the ep40 line

or ensure that the bo line is very balanced and very heavy..

.

i'm actually thinking i'd prefer to first try ferland first with brock and ep40

in order to see how much damage bo, jt, and pearson can do to other teams top lines (or weaker lines if that ends up being the matchup)

that is going to be one really tough line for other teams to have to deal with

they are quickly going to get a reputation in the league

Edited by coastal.view
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

cheers

good to clarify that point

i think the miller trade was excellent

he will help the ep40 line

or ensure that the bo line is very balanced and very heavy..

.

i'm actually thinking i'd prefer to first try ferland first with brock and ep40

in order to see how much damage bo, jt, and pearson can to other teams top lines (or weaker lines if that ends up being the matchup)

that is going to be one really tough line for other teams to have to deal with

they are quickly going to get a reputation in the league

Miller  Bo  Pearson could end up being one of the top second lines in the NHL.  Ferland  Petey Brock will get all the tough matchups so the BO line will be free to run against the weaker checking lines not matched up with our top line.  I can see Miller popping 30 next year and BO hitting 70 points.

Edited by Elias Pettersson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Why is losing a first for a solid top 6 winger on a great contract locked up for the next 4 years who is only 26 a bad deal?

He said it wasn't ideal.  Not that it was a "bad" deal.  Similar words - not remotely alike.

 

And I see his point.  With Benning's almost typical ability to draft winners, a first would have given us a crack at another 1st line player instead of a guy who can play the part, but is more realistically a good (notice I didn't say "great") 2nd line player. And if that happened, we would have enjoyed an elc period and likely a few-year "show me" contract similar to what we currently acquired in Miller's contract.

 

But Benning's plan was to make us a playoff team now - an intention I can respect if not agree with considering our already reasonably healthy prospect pool.

Edited by kloubek
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kloubek said:

He said it wasn't ideal.  Not that it was a "bad" deal.  Similar words - not remotely alike.

 

And I see his point.  With Benning's almost typical ability to draft winners, a first would have given us a crack at another 1st line player instead of a guy who can play the part, but is more realistically a good (notice I didn't say "great") 2nd line player. And if that happened, we would have enjoyed an elc period and likely a few-year "show me" contract.

 

But Benning's plan was to make us a playoff team now - an intention I can respect if not agree with considering our already reasonably healthy prospect pool.

I understand what you are saying.  But that first round pick we gave up may not be until 2021 and may not help this team for 3-4 years.  While Miller, who was a first round pick himself, can help us immediately.  The window is now not 4 years from now.  We have the pieces to compete for the playoffs this year while still adding younger pieces along the way like Podkolzon, Hoglander, Madden, Juolevi, Tryamkin, Woo, etc.  

 

We don't need any more lottery picks.  We need to be making the playoffs every year starting this year and then competing for a cup hopefully sooner rather than later.  The rebuild is over.  Benning has his team now.  The fun starts this year.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I understand what you are saying.  But that first round pick we gave up may not be until 2021 and may not help this team for 3-4 years. 

Umm... that 1st round pick would have been next year's if we kept it. And like Petterson (which is in unrealistic example, I know) if he hit gold again, seeing that player in 1 or 2 years isn't out of the question.

 

Still, your later thoughts echoed mine, where we have a strong prospect pool who might already hold pretty good talent.  So we're both fine with it. Ultimately, we agree. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Umm... that 1st round pick would have been next year's if we kept it. And like Petterson (which is in unrealistic example, I know) if he hit gold again, seeing that player in 1 or 2 years isn't out of the question.

 

Still, your later thoughts echoed mine, where we have a strong prospect pool who might already hold pretty good talent.  So we're both fine with it. Ultimately, we agree. :)

The first round pick is only next year if it’s not a top ten pick. Which could very well be the case as I think the Canucks make the playoffs. However if that is the case then Tampa is not going to find a Pettersson in the second half of the first round. They may find a young JT Miller though. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ButterBean said:

Well that came out wrong. I was a big fan of the Miller trade, I was just wondering if we could stack some draft capital to make up for it. 

Tanev, Baer, Sutter.

 

Gonna lose on Loui.

 

I am a believer in almost always selling at the trade deadline in particular 2 for 1 deals.

 

IE Tanev for a 2nd and a 3rd. The contestant out and in will keep a team fresh and full of assets.

 

Once you are truly competitive you can buy with your accumulated assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Why is losing a first for a solid top 6 winger on a great contract locked up for the next 4 years who is only 26 a bad deal?

I don't understand the angst toward that deal either. Miller is a solid top six forward that provides more than offense. He adds a bit more grit to the team; not in a pugilistic way but in tenacity. 

I'm very excited to see him next season.

I thi k the new look Canucks are going to turn some heads in the upcoming season.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Why is losing a first for a solid top 6 winger on a great contract locked up for the next 4 years who is only 26 a bad deal?

That's what many people don't understand. Miller is a solid player. JB is betting on the team being much better. If it works and it's a non-lottery pick, any player taken in that range would be a good pick if they COULD become the kind of player JT is, or even be in the neighbourhood of producing as he has. There are no guarantees.

 

I've had to listen to the same guy at work non-stop whining over the loss of the 1st. I agree that it is a gamble. He argues we gave up a 1st for a guy who scored 13 goals and had only 47 points on a strong team. I've even mentioned his 56 and 58 pt season prior to last, and his term and dollars. Always goes back to 13 & 47. The point is that he was on a STRONG team, much stronger and deeper than when he was with the Rangers. Didn't have anything more to say when I asked him if he'd prefer similar players (production, not style) like Gourde (1 more pt, 5 more GP, year older), Johnson (same pts, 5 more GP, 2 yr older), Killorn (7 fewer pts, 7 more GP, 3 yr older), Palat (13 fewer pts, 13 fewer GP, 2 yr older). All good players, but not any better than Miller. Add in the fact he's plays a harder game then the previously named players. I could totally be wrong, but I'd also like to believe JT has more to give with a larger role this year. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ButterBean said:

With JB’s recent additions this offseason, I think most of us know that this team can be very competitive for the next few years. Our prospect pool is looking pretty good right now with Juolevi, Woo, Madden, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Keppen, Lind, Gadjovich, Lockwood, DiPietro, etc.   

 

That being said, the cupboard is never full and losing a 1st for Miller wasn’t ideal. I know we aren’t in the position to get that pick back but if we could get rid of some loose ends or prospects that might not fit, it was be wise for JB to stack up some draft capital for next year and keep this team rolling for a very long time. Thoughts? 

Over the course of the next few years I could see players like Tanev, Baer, Sutter, Pearson, Ferland, Myers etc...being moved for picks as more of our prospects start to make the jump. Juolevi eventually replaces Tanev, Hoglander and Podkolzin replace Pearson and Ferland, Woo replaces Myers, etc etc etc....That being said, it may make more sense to flip these guys for more established prospects or even just younger players on entry level deals or cheaper contracts when the time comes. 

 

Point is we have a lot of flippable assets that should be made available in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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