Photo Credit: Matthew Henderson

Canucks Army Roundtable: It gets Boeser and Boeser

This week in Canucks nation, the topic at hand has been the worth of the top 2 picks in this draft. It seems that the price to acquire such a pick might revolve around Brock Boeser, who has been a standout prospect for the Canucks recently and even made the big club to finish off 2016-17.

Should the Canucks consider doing such a move? I asked our writers for their thoughts. What are yours?

Question: Would you move Brock Boeser for the 1st or 2nd pick in this draft and why?

Tyler Horsfall

Yes because as good as Boeser can be and as much as I’d like to see him stay a Canuck, he’s not a C and is probably not going to be as valuable as Nolan Patrick or Nico Hischier. Also, Patrick/Hischier are younger and the Canucks will also have them under ELC/Club control for longer.

J.D. Burke

I would trade Brock Boeser for the first or second overall pick in a heartbeat. You know who wouldn’t make that trade? Literally, any team holding a first or second overall pick in any draft class. It would be that lopsided for Vancouver. Now, I think the world of Boeser. He is, in my estimation, the highest ceiling offensive player in the Canucks’ system, and it’s not even close. If the Canucks add either Nico Hischier or Nolan Patrick, he’s bumped down the list and without much hesitation at that. I hope it doesn’t sound like I don’t appreciate Boeser. I appreciate him a lot. I just know that this team desperately needs a player with first-line centre potential more than they need a player like Boeser.

Vanessa Jang

If it were a one-for-one, I would 100% make that deal. That being said, I’d rather not though. Is Nolan/Nico a better prospect than Boeser? I think so, but I’d much rather create a package with one of our defensemen as opposed to giving up our best prospect.


The immediate fan in me says NO WAY JOSE but if I think about this rationally, I agree with all the previous answers. Star centres don’t grow on trees, they aren’t available at your local IGA and when you get close enough to get one,  you make that move. We all got excited when the Canucks had a legit chance at winning the lottery or at least coming second and if it means trading Boeser which I doubt would be the play, I say do it. But… no one ever lets me push the button so you’re safe for today.

Jeff Veillette

You can’t not make this move. Boeser looks poised to be a very good player, but the upside on Hischier and Patrick is convincingly higher, not to mention they both play a more valuable position in the long run. The factor of unknowns could be considered here, but it’s hard to say that what we saw in nine games of Boeser at a professional level is a definitive proving ground. Not to mention, if this really is a long term project, making one of your top pieces a year and a half to two years younger is probably better for the window once this team is once again competitive. I’m super stoked for what Boeser could become, but the value difference here is lopsided and I think neither New Jersey or Philadephia would be stupid enough to make that trade.

Matthew Henderson

Yeah, I think it’s pretty unanimous across the board that you make this trade if it comes to it. Boeser is fun to watch, and was one of the few bright spots of the past season, but I think a talent like Patrick or Hischier doesn’t come around often enough to have it pass by.

  • TheRealPB

    JD is absolutely right — there is no way either NJ or Philly make that deal. No matter how good Boeser is — and he’s a great prospect, far better than we should expect at that spot in the draft — he is unlikely to be as good a player as either Hischier or Patrick. And given his very short resume in the NHL it’s not like he’s a proven player either. There’s young players with some pedigree and performance that might be worth one of those top picks but they are better than anyone the Canucks have on their roster. I love Horvat and Boeser and Stetcher etc but let’s be real here.

  • TheRealPB

    Also, in order to land one of those picks you’d need to package (probably) the 5th plus probably two prospects including Boeser or Juolevi or Demko. Doing so makes you stronger in one area but for a team that is actually rebuilding and has limited assets it would probably actually set you back a fair bit in another area just to get that potential #1 center. At this point it makes more sense to try and settle for one of the centers who will likely be available (Glass, Mittelstadt or Vilardi) or one of the d (Heiskanen or Liljegren) rather than depleting us further on D, W and G.

    • Not sure why you’re getting downvoted on this – perfectly reasonable assessment.

      You might convince Philly to do Boeser and the 5th (or Tanev and the 5th) for 2nd. Philly has a #1 centre and they’re not nearly as bad a team as their ranking suggests. But the Devils need a #1 centre as much or more than Vancouver does – can’t see them parting with the #1 pick unless you back a dumptruck of picks and players to their door.

      • Bud Poile

        Boeser,Juolevi and a fifth is the down vote.
        Boeser is a (revised) top ten pick,Juolevi is arguably the best d choice in his draft plus another 5th guts our prospect pool.

  • wojohowitz

    That would be a mistake. Boeser projects to be a mature 20 year old and a 30 goal scorer as a second line winger with leadership potential – a known quality. Patrick has to prove he can play without an injury prone career while Hischier has the talent but does he have the competitive edge necessary to succeed – neither are a known quality.

    What makes more sense to me is Demko for the 3rd overall or Tanev and the 33rd for a 10 to 15 overall. Todays rumour is Glass and Pettersson back for more interviews. Get them both and the future looks much brighter much sooner.

      • wojohowitz

        Here`s the breakdown of Tanev`s game. Defensively he is one of the best in the league. He nearly always clears the zone cleanly. He rarely makes a mistake. His first pass is almost always on the tape. His downside is this; In 7 seasons his best point total is 20 and he only did that once. Stecher in his rookie season had 24 points and looks good for 40-50 over the next 2 or 3 years. Edler in 10 of 11 seasons had point totals over 20. Tanev is excellent at what he does but generating offence is not his forte. He is valuable but he is not elite as so many here seem to think.

        • truthseeker

          Yes he is. He’s more than elite.

          Hall for Larrsen. Tanev is WAAAY better than Larrsen.

          Suggesting nothing more than a first round pick is simply ridiculous. A gross rip off of the canucks. You need another example? Check out the return for Shattenkirk. A RENTAL….for a couple months. The return was MASSIVE.

          You are under valuing Tanev. By a HUGE HUGE margin.

          Get it through your heads boys….

          It to Hall to get Larssen. Larssen is NO Tanev. Not even close.

          • Fortitude00

            Larrson played 79 games,19 points and a +21 Tanev played 53(has never played more then 70), score 10 points and was a +3. Tanev played on some good teams and his highest +- was 12 and his highest ever point total is 18.
            I know +- isn’t the greatest stat but to suggest Larrson a player who is age 24 isn’t as good as Tanev who at 27 has already peaked is asinine. Larrson plays full seasons, score more points, is on the ice for less goals against, is a bigger body that can handle physicality and is a much better skater.

          • truthseeker


            So yeah….. Plus minus doesn’t mean anything in this case, and you using it as an argument is asinine. Larsson is NOWHERE near Tanev defensively. Not even close.

            And Larssen’s offense is not even that much better than Tanev’s. Some thing like .24 PPG to .22 PPG.

            Larsson is nowhere near the defender Tanev is. Teams will pay big for a shot suppressor like Tanev. Tanev closes out games almost single handedly. He doesn’t throw the puck up to Getzlaf and cost his team a playoff game.

            you’re completely wrong on this one.

      • Braindead Benning

        Or perhaps you are overvaluating Tanev? I get he is a great defensive D-man and unless they get deal of the century then it makes no sense to trade him.
        Just because Dim Jim payed a premium for a Slug and PC payed dearly for Larson does not necessarily mean this trend will continue, just like adding a mean power forward was in the 90s and 2000s. In the end at least the oilers have a very competent and servisable d-man unlike what the Canucks and the draft genius thought they were getting… I guess old Jimbo had a hard on because he was to busy salivating over his draft position like some other moron mentioned

  • Picking at #5 isn’t bad, it’s just not instant gratification. Look at the Johanson-Glass comparison and Glass isn’t even the highest ranked centre that might be available at #5. Boeser has demonstrated that he can be a first line scoring winger in less than 10 games. Trading Boeser plus more to take the #1 or #2 is shortsighted.

    • Jabs

      I agree, how does the saying go?….a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Brock has shown he should be able to be a bonafide NHL’er. The centre the Canucks draft at number 5 (assuming they draft a centre) very well could end up being the best in his draft class after a few years. Time will tell.

  • Peezy F

    I think Boeser is our highest ceiling goal scored…when it comes to playmaking, there is so much that Goldobin could become for this team as an offensive catalyst. His vision and puck skills are something else. I am enjoying his comradarity with the boys, seems like a guy people want to be around. Boeser is the silent assassin type.

  • truthseeker

    Another example of over rating picks.

    This is an interesting scenario though because of Boeser’s limited experience. Still, in a handful of games he has looked the part of NHL capable talent.

    And that’s more than you can say for either of Patrick or Hischier. I’m sorry but these two don’t even have the buzz of a Matthews let alone McDavid.

    To much Alexandre Daigle potential in this draft. And I like what my eyes have already showed me. That Boeser can play and produce in the NHL. Even if it was only a handful of games.

    Having said that…he is a winger, and wingers have virtually no value in terms of trades.

    To me it’s almost an even proposition with maybe a slight edge to the 2 centers simply because they’re centers.

    But yeah…no way NJ or Philly do the deal just because of the perception of the value of first round picks.

  • crofton

    I wouldn’t try to trade for the #1 pick. First because it would cost Boeser plus someone, or Horvat plus someone, and why deplete the just re-filling prospect cupboard? Second, Boeser has pretty much shown he will be a top 6 player if not top 3, and any pick is still a crap shoot and many top picks simply do not pan out. And third, by all accounts there will be a pretty good centre available at #5. Or a D-man if that’s the way they decide to go.

  • DJ_44

    I cannot help but think these are the exact same arguments presented after the Shinkaruk/Granlund trade. “Higher ceiling” they cry. That is far agreed upon. Boeser is an absolute stud. He is a #1 winger, and will be on any team in the league. Do not event think of trading him.

    • truthseeker

      Part of that is canuck fan’s tendency to think that every young player we have that hasn’t really played in the NHL is this amazing talent we “gave up on”.

      It’s funny how all those Shinkaruk whiners are invisible now. Just like the McCann whiners and the Hodgson whiners.

      Canuck fans make it really hard to be a canuck fan.

      Anyway…it’s not the last time you’ll hear it. It looks like Jordan Subban is the next one who will be held up by the whiners as their poster boy for “hard done by” canuck prospects.

        • truthseeker

          You’re missing the point. It’s not about if they will or won’t be good or not. It’s about fan expectations.

          People (probably like you) just automatically assumed the Shinkaruk/Granlund trade was a bad one just because a guy named Jim Benning made it.

          Not even willing to give it a chance. Just whining and complaining that we gave up this amazing winger who scored alright in Utica, for a guy they probably never even looked at.

          Same moronic attitude was given to Gillis on the Hodgeson trade (funny how you didn’t mention him eh?…lol…I bet a millon dollars you were one of those whiners about trading him weren’t you?)

          See, unlike you and the rest of the “side takers” who feel the need to be extreme in either direction, I understand that guys like Benning, and Green, know a whole lot more about their jobs than I do. So when they make a deal I don’t automatically poo poo it the moment it happens just out of reflex like you guys do.

  • How-z still got a job

    I would be upset if they trade Boeser. The leading scorer in the playoffs right now (guentzel) had a career high of 46 points in 35 games in NCHC. Boeser at a year younger, before his injury had 62 in 40. Guentzel obviously has a more talented lineup to play with but I think that Boeser will be a huge performer for years to come. Well get our centers eventually, and when we do Boeser can light it up alongside them. My two cents.

  • Fred-65

    Here’s the gamble …. and it’s fraught with danger. Boeser is further along the curve of development which gives us better insight into his future. Not so much with either Patrick or Hischier. Particularly with Patrick who has been injury prone since his days as a midget. Hischier may never play the same game in the NHL as he does in the “Q” Every “D” in the NHL can skate better than the “Q” So it is a gamble of what you know or what you guess. I hope Vcr picks up a centre (such as Mittelstdt ) who can bring the best out of the likes of Dalien, Goldobin or Boeser if not their effectiveness is lost

        • truthseeker

          yeah…far to many unknown factors in this draft. The top two aren’t worth the assets given up to get them. Patrick might be great, or he might be an injury prone bust. Hischier doesn’t sound that amazing. We need more than just a “competent” first line center. We need a real dynamic one.

          Better to take a chance on one of the other centers in this draft with “potential” and then see what happens in the draft next year. One of the other kids in this years draft could just as easily end up being better than either of the top 2.

  • FireGillis

    I have never disagreed with you JD, but this time I think you are very wrong. I would be crushed if the Canucks traded boeser for the first overall pick. Mark my words, boeser will win the caulder next season. I think he will obviously be on the first powerplay unit, and I think he’s extremely capable of 30+ goals and 50+ points

    • TrueBlue

      Man… it would be pretty cool to see Boeser explode like that. I see both sides of the trade argument to the point that its practically a push for me.

      Thankfully we likely won’t have worry about the fallout because I doubt this deal gets done. Withthe assets so closely matched due to present value vs potential value factored in, the prestige of making the #1 or #2 overall selection wins out and Jersey/Philly keep their picks.

      • defenceman factory

        I’m sure there will be others far more unkind than me should they read this. Trading Boeser for 1st or second could maybe be defended, throwing in the 5th is a huuuuuge overpay. The nuge was taken 1st overall a few years ago and it can be argued there are several players that have turned out better. There is reasonable possibility other centers will turn out better than Nolan Patrick.

        Every draft pick is an unproven kid. There is a degree of risk with all of them and this year the risk seems a bit higher than other years. Shiny and new doesn’t mean better.

          • Jabs

            Worth pointing out too that Scheifele was ranked 16 overall going into the draft and weighed 177 pounds. He has since beefed up and is a dominant player.
            I have no problem with GMJB going deeper than what the draft experts are ranking if he sees that diamond in the rough.

          • defenceman factory

            I think there are a couple more centres from that draft class now surpassing RNJ. There are probably 8 players from that year that are more valuable players than RNJ.

            The point being its common this time of year to over value draft picks.

          • defenceman factory

            I wasn’t talking about centers other than to say a few years from now Patrick could quite possibly not be the best of this years crop.

            RNH has been the best point producing centre from his draft class but as these players are now in their prime it could be argued that Rackell and perhaps Zibanejad have become more valuable but I never liked how RNH played and that’s just an opinion. RNH was an example of the 1st overall pick not turning out to be the best player in a draft. There are lots more.

    • truthseeker

      why don’t we just throw in goldobin, Sven, Horvat, Juolevi edler, the twins, that prospect for burrows, demko, all of our picks from this draft…..

      sounds about as smart as your deal.

  • Dirk22

    Trading Boeser for a 1 or 2 pick of course makes sense but you can’t lose the 5th alongside it. Better off keeping Boeser, drafting at #5 and trying to use Tanev to get the #3 + a prospect from Dallas. Take a D and a C in the top 5 and now you’re building something.

  • LTFan

    The question – Moving Boeser for the #1 or #2 pick? Answer – No! Why – because 1. The teams holding those picks New Jersey and Philadelphia would want more than the picks (prospects – which is what they are) are worth, 2. neither one of those players will be impact players (difference makers) and 3. for what the Canucks would have to give up, slow or stall the rebuild that is currently underway. They are not a McDavid or Matthews.

    • dtriemstra

      “Neither one of those players will be impact players…” Really? And how did you come to that conclusion? I agree that it’s a little risky to trade Boeser, but to say that is a little bit of a stretch. Nico has a good chance to reach his high ceiling as a faster/more skilled first line centre. Nolan is a more guaranteed 2nd line centre and can become like Ryan Getzlaf as his potential. Reaching full potential is up for debate but to say they won’t be impact players is just false.

  • Tedchinook

    Interesting that they’re talking about Patrick and Hischier as if they are generational players when the consensus has always been that they’re not. Given the age these kids are drafted at I don’t think it would be a big surprise if one of Mittlestat, Vilardi or Glass turned out to be the best NHL player a few years down the road.

  • Nolan Flann

    JD is right I would much rather have Nico or Nolan then Brock but as we only have Brock I am ok with that I would love if we traded Boeser for either the number one pick or the number two pick