43

WWYDW: Trade Up, Trade Down, Stand Pat

We’re just over a week out from draft day, which means speculation as to who the Canucks will target and what moves are in store will ramp up from this moment on. Before we get to the question that’s on everybody’s mind next week, let’s take a look at the possibility of moving the pick up or down.

The Canucks find themselves in an interesting spot. In my estimation there are about for or five really special players at the top of this draft, most of whom are unlikely to be available at seventh overall. As we approach the Canucks slot, the question of who should be selected becomes largely a question of personal preference. The Canucks could move down a few slots and still get a good player – as well as some extra picks, which they desperately need.

It’s clear there’s a compelling case to trade both up or down. So, if you’re the Canucks, do you move up, move down, or stand pat? I imagine this depends largely on who’s available, so feel free to draw up scenarios where you’d make a trade.

Last week I asked: If you were a player on the Stanley Cup-winning team, would you attend the White House visit? Why or why not? Should these semi-traditional visits just be scrapped altogether?

SJ:

Not a freaking chance.

I should follow this up by saying I think the whole thing should be scrapped. It’s been turned into a political decision. As much as you want to push all the “put your differences aside/take the politics out of it”; I believe it’s too late for that. We’re already there. No matter what you do/say/decide it’s going to be viewed through the political lens. And if the NHL wants to appear to stand for equal rights for everyone then nobody should go.

Defenceman Fact…:

Championship teams visiting the whitehouse is a time honoured tradition that should be continued …… as soon as Trump is no longer president.

It should be made clear this is a rejection of him as an immoral individual and not a slight to those that might share his political affiliations. Sports transcends politics but they do not transcend being a decent human being.

apr:

As much as its a team game, something like this has to be an individual decision. Ownership/management should allow players to have discretion on whether they go or not. Its stupid that the Pens made Crosby go when he clearly wanted nothing to do with it. Its more than fine if Brady wanted to go. It does no one any good when players are forced to attend.

Goon:

Yes, I’d go. It’s not about whether you agree with the politics of the person who occupies the White House, it’s about respect for the office of the president and recognition of your own achievement.

That said, I completely sympathize with NFL players who refuse to go, given Trump’s direct, personal attacks against the NFL and its players.

Forever1915:

To quote a disgruntled military guy who had a lousy commanding officer: “I’m respecting the rank, not the man.” That being said, I’d attend and if anyone asks for a soundbite, I’d say: “Your president is one of the worst ever, I’m just here to raid the deli tray.”

Riley Miner:

Personally, I would not, just as I wouldn’t visit the PM if he reflected Trump’s views. The whole ‘respect for office’ thing is frankly a little ridiculous, the Whitehouse visit is purely a political photo-op. When someone is actively parting families from their children and exiling as many of an ethnicity that he can, it’s probably okay to pass on giving the guy a pretty picture to hang.

Mindset Expert:

Frankly, I’d rather players focused on their offseason routine, getting better at hockey. Foley or Leonsis isn’t paying you to do a politics, he’s paying you to play hockey. Get back in the rink and do some wind sprints. Get in the gym and do legs. Never skip leg day. Too many athletes these days don’t have the ability to focus on the task at hand and are either kneeling for the anthem or are visiting some old guy. Play the game.
Moosekayak:
Visiting the WH (or 24 Sussex) or not doing so are equally political. I’ll admit that if I was an NHL player I’d probably be too full of a PR mindset to want to cause a stir – but also I really wouldn’t want to go. I’d make up some excuse (prior family commitments!) and justify it with not being American.
truthseeker:

I hate patriotism and propaganda. And that’s what sucking up to the president/prime minister is.

The only reason to go would be to protest directly. Call the leaders out, right on the spot. That would be something to see.

Every president has been a disgusting human being with blood on all their hands. None of them have ever been “decent”.

ARTICLE BROUGHT TO YOU BY SPORTS EXCELLENCE

Founded in 1950, Sports Excellence Corporation represents over 150 family-owned independent hockey retailers across Canada and the United States. Our highly knowledgeable hockey specialists are available to assist all your equipment needs. Find your closest Sports Excellence retailer here!

  • TD

    I would definitely move up to the #1 spot if possible without emptying the cupboards. I would be open to move up a couple of spots if that meant getting the players believed to be better, again only if it didn’t break the bank. I would move down for additional picks, but again only if that would allow them to get the player they want. I would not do it if it meant possibly missing out on the player they deemed the better prospect.

  • detox

    If you are looking at drafting a forward, you stand pat or move up.

    If you want a dman, unless you have the foa pick, you trade down.

    bpa sounds nice but dmen are such a crap shoot.

  • Buffalo’s not trading the #1 unless they get an obscene haul (Boeser, Petterson, the #7, potentially more).

    I would love to see the Canucks move down – perhaps significantly – if it meant acquiring another 1st round pick. There will be several players available around #15 with the potential to be impact NHLers. If you could pick at 15 and 20, for example, rather than 7, I’d do that in a heartbeat given the depth of the 1st round this year. I can’t imagine Benning making a move like that, though – it’s too new-school for him, and he’s desperate to land an impact defenceman.

  • Use the #7 pick to select one of Hughes, Boqvist, Dobson or Bouchard. I’d consider trading down if a) one of these four defencemen would still be available and b) I get at least a decent draft pick (e.g. 2nd or 3rd rounder). I wouldn’t trade up because a) the quality of prospects doesn’t change at #4-6 and b) #1-3 would cost too much.

    On a side note, I’d be looking to trade one of our surplus scoring wingers for more draft picks (ideally Baertschi for a 1st round pick or a pair of 2nd and 3rd round picks).

  • Killer Marmot

    Anytime someone suggests a trade, they should have to fill out a form answering the following questions:

    1. How will the Canucks benefit from this trade?
    2. How will the Canucks be hurt from this trade?
    3. What are the risks?
    4. Why do the apparent benefits outweigh the apparent harm, and why are the risks reasonable?
    5 -8: The same for the team on the other side of the proposed trade.

    The reason for the last four questions is that if it’s not a seemingly good deal for the other side then you’re likely dreaming in technicolor. The trade isn’t happening.

  • Killer Marmot

    I like where the Canucks are now.

    They badly need better defensemen, but Dahlin is probably out of reach unless they pay a very dear price.

    The #7 spot gives them the choice of at least two out of four good defensemen that have no clear standout. Trading a few positions up might not significantly improve their pick. Trading a few positions down risks shutting them out of all four.

  • Kootenaydude

    I would stay put with the #7 pick as the first four selections. Dahlin, Svechnikov, Zadina and Tkachuk look locked in. That should leave us with a good defenceman to choose from. What I would like to see is the Canucks try to get another first rounder. There seems to be some good defencemen later in the first round too.

    • I think Tkachuk will be this year’s Gabe Vilardi. I can see him falling out of the Top 10 because his production doesn’t match the hype. Instead, I’d put Wahlstrom or Hughes at #4. But I think Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi will go higher than their rankings which only improves the quality of the defenceman that we get at #7. I only hope Wahlstrom isn’t available at #7 to force Benning to choose a D.

  • RT

    This is difficult to answer as it really depends where you are moving to and what is being offered in return. Without really knowing those particulars it is similar to going on a bind date, you find out when you meet if it was a good idea. With that said I wouldn’t be opposed to moving down for the right return depending on who was left on the board. If Wahlstrom is there I think you have to take him. If not and you can move back and still get a decent D man plus sweetener, do it.

  • TheRealPB

    I think the idea of surplus picks is fine for the later rounds but in the first round you go with the highest you have. I wouldn’t go for a higher slot because the cost is too much for a rebuilding franchise to bear. But dropping out of the top ten is a non-starter for me. I just don’t see evidence that this works as a strategy. In Horvat’s year, pretty much every pick from 1-9 yielded an excellent-to-solid NHLer. Picks 10-20 have a couple of good players (Mantha and Morrissey, maybe Wennberg) but really nothing like the quality of those top 9. 2014 is a similar kind of story; way more of a chance to hit a home run with the higher pick. I’d stand pat and see if anyone above us makes a weird pick. If Wahlstrom or Hughes falls to us we will be in heaven; but even if not, the drop-off between the 2nd and 3rd tiers and all beneath them is substantial.

  • DeL

    I would move up to fourth if it didn’t cost an arm and a leg. Ottawa is in disarray and need something positive in a big way so might want to keep the pick. But you never know. I would wait until I saw who was left when my pick came up before I considered moving down, and it would come at a cost, Like perhaps Lou’s pick(s)

  • Steamer

    Keep the pick.Boquist’s concussions worry me – was a big fan, but now I’m lookin’ elsewhere: Wahlstrom is appealing up front, Tkachuk likely gone by 7; on D I love Bouchard, ‘though I feel Dobson may be the better choice based solely upon skating. Hughes’ size is too big a swing for me given his shot isn’t so hard & goal scoring not such a big part of his game, although he does drive play like few can & had an impressive 1st year at NCAA with healthy assist #’s. In the end, I’m leaning to Wahlstrom or Bouchard – especially like Bouchard’s offensive consistency – since Bantam – but Wahlstrom does possess crazy skills. Trades? Tanev, Baertschi, Hutton, et al for picks, picks, picks. 8 more sleeps!

  • Beefus

    The only team that I would trade down would be the Islanders if they were willing to trade their two first rounders for 7 overall. Two talented players will still be available at picks 11 and 12.

    Even then I would do it only if the player they had their eye on (Dobson, Wahlstrom or whoever) had already been picked.

  • Ken Priestlay Fan

    I don’t really feel like the Canucks have the expendable assets to move up and I’d rather any assets that are given up are done so for extra picks rather than to improve the one they already have. For example, if Wahlstrom is taken at 7, could Find be traded for a late 1st to take a defenseman such as Rasmus Sandin? This seems like a deep draft in the first two or three rounds and they should be trying to get as many picks as possible. Baertschi should bring at least a second (probably more) and I’d like them to look at trading Del Zotto and signing de Haan in FA

  • argoleas

    Stand pat. Take BPA. Fill possible organizational need if multiple BPAs. Likely means a 1st-pairing offensive RD.

    Trading up requires expending additional picks or prospects. Canucks do not have anything to spare now.

    Trading down may result in taking a lesser BPA, so proceed with extreme caution.

  • wojohowitz

    If Hughes is available at the 6 spot they could send a player (Baertschi) to Detroit for a switch.

    If Bouchard, Boqvist and Dobson are still available at the 7 spot they could switch with Edmonton`s 10 spot along with Hutton for Klefbom.

    Benning could really surprise everyone by taking the best center available –
    Kotkaniemi…and from deep left field; The 7 spot to Ottawa for a signed Karlsson.

  • Seatoo

    Once you understand how much moving up would cost the Canucks its easy to dismiss it and to me, make the idea of trading down even more attractive. I would be happy to move down up to 5 spots or less as long as the Canucks could take Ty Smith out of Spokane. Add in a 2nd and a prospect or a 2nd + 3rd etc for trading down and I think it helps the Canucks rebuild along more than just the #7 pick.

  • apr

    Just listened to Bobcast – and he basically states that 3-9 is wide open. Montreal picking Kotkiemi at 3 and Dobson being the first D man taken after Dahlin is very viable. My sense is the Rangers will be hot after Tkachuk (as they just hired his college coach). If Tkachuk is there at 7, I’d trade with the Rangers if you can get more picks. At 9, either Boqvist or Bouchard will be there.

  • J_R

    I would not trade up. The Canucks can’t afford the cost to move up. I’d consider trading down if the player I wanted is off the board, particularly if Dallas would give me picks 13, 44, and 75. I’d try to come away with 2 Dmen and a Center with my first 3 picks at 13, 37 and 44. But if Quinn Hughes is sitting there at 7, which I doubt he will be, I keep the pick and take him.

  • myshkin

    it’s a fluid situation. you can’t make that decision until it’s your turn or a few spots before your pick. if none of the players you want are gone at 7, why not trade down a few spots?

  • Locust

    Almost everyone selected after #10 overall is a maybe.
    Some work out really well, most do not. It is a crapshoot after #10.
    Keep the pick, get a virtually guaranteed NHLer, move on.

  • Rodeobill

    Moving down a few spots is probably okay in this draft, as anything in the top half of the first looks pretty good, but at what kind of return? Not if the other side just kicks in an extra 7th rounder. Maybe get an extra 2nd and you got a deal. This draft has a lot of guys that look promising and well researched picks should be collected and made even deeper in the draft, from people learning to play the position later, to overagers with previous injuries, to personality problems. This looks like a good draft, do what we can to get more picks, but try not to leave the top of the first round too.

  • Kootenaydude

    How about our #7 pick and a player or 2nd round pick for the Islanders #11 & #12 picks. Good chance there’s still a good defenceman left. On another note. Lou as an Islander now kinda scares me. Never mind.

  • truthseeker

    Obviously it totally depends on the offer but basically I’d stay right where they are. As someone who thinks they should still go with one of the D they like even over those top two wingers, trading up makes almost no sense to me at all. Trading down? I suppose a little maybe but it just seems like it’s unreasonable. To me gaining a second round pick isn’t really all that important especially if it means the potential of losing out on the guy you want. The failure rate of players outside the top 10 is just too high.

  • Defenceman Factory

    Trade the 7th overall to the Bruins for Torey Krug and an additional asset. Boston doesn’t have a 1st rd pick and wants back in, they also have a good crop of young Dmen. Krug is a great PP quarterback and is the usual benchmark for success for undersized Dmen.

    Not sure I completely support this idea but if Vancouver could add another winger and get Krug and Carlo out of Boston it is worth consideration.

  • NSB

    If the top of the draft goes the way Pronman is leaning, with Dahlin Svenchnikov Kotkaniemi Zadina 1 2 3 and 4, I see a fit with Arizona swapping picks and us trading up to land Hughes.

    Based on their first couple of drafts, the Chayka-led Coyotes seem like an analytics-happy bunch who, like the writers here, are happy to move down within a grouping of several players if they feel they’re of similar value and they can add an asset in exchange, and we’ve all seen Benning overpay to get the guy he likes. I can’t say for sure how the Coyotes view the Hughes/Wahlstrom/Tkachuk group, or if that’s even how their board looks, but that seems to be a reasonable cut-off for the 2nd tier of prospects after Dahlin. I don’t know what it would take to make the switch, and it might be harder after they’ve landed Galchenyuk because they might just want the D prospect, but I’d be willing to overpay slightly given our dearth of legitimate D prospects, preferably a player asset like Granlund or Baertschi than a pick.