63
Photo Credit: Anne-Marie Sorvin - USA TODAY Sports

Trade Market: Additional First Round Draft Pick Edition

With the 2019 NHL Entry Draft scheduled to take place in Vancouver on June 21 and 22, it’s all but certain that the Canucks will not be trading their 2019 first round draft pick—no matter what position they occupy in the standings come Trade Deadline day. GM Jim Benning referred to the idea as a “non-starter” back in August, and there’s no reason to believe that anything has changed since then. The optics of the host team not drafting on the first day of the draft—especially in a hockey-mad market like Vancouver—are just too bad to make any deal that involves the first rounder worthwhile.

In fact, there are many in the fanbase who would much prefer it if Benning and Co. sought out additional first-round picks for the upcoming draft—even if the Canucks remain in a playoff position. This edition of the Trade Market marks a twist on the column concept as we look around the league for teams that might be willing to give up their picks, and what the Canucks might have to give up to close a deal.

Under What Scenarios Should The Canucks Seek Out Additional Firsts? 

There are two ways to answer this question. Those with a long-term perspective might rightly argue that the Canucks are best served by seeking out additional draft picks under ANY scenario—even if the team leads the Pacific Division come the deadline. The early dominance of Elias Pettersson may have hit the fast-forward on the rebuild, but the rest of the roster is still a far cry from a genuine Stanley Cup contender. With blue-chip prospects like Quinn Hughes, Jonathan Dahlen, and Olli Juolevi incoming, the Canucks’ best days are yet to come, and the front office would do better to continue building toward the future rather than focusing on a short-lived playoff run.

That being said, the above sentiment is probably just a touch too idealistic. The realities of the Vancouver hockey market—and the rumoured proclivities of the Acquilinis—dictate that a Canuck team in a playoff position would never “sell” at the Trade Deadline. Once again, optics come into play, thanks to the inevitable bad press that would come with hobbling a postseason-bound squad by trading a roster player for future assets. There’s also the potential loss of playoff revenue to consider, and that’s enough to reasonably argue that the Canucks will only trade for additional first-round picks midseason if they’re out of a playoff position.

Of course, as soon as the 2018/19 season ends—no matter the results—all bets are off, and the Canucks will also have the time between the Stanley Cup Finals and the Entry Draft to pursue a trade.

 

The Benefits Of Having More Than One First Round Pick 

The impact on the local fanbase is obvious, as the Canucks making multiple picks in the first round would undoubtedly increase buzz and anticipation in Vancouver. There’s also Jim Benning’s solid record of selecting quality NHLers in the first round—even if they’re not always the absolutely best possible selections—and he’s yet to totally flub an early pick. Benning has shown that he can find big league talent anywhere in the first round, so the more picks the better. More quality talent drafted now means more quality players hitting their prime when the team becomes competitive in a few years.

 

The Best Teams To Target In A Trade 

If first-round draft picks are so valuable, it stands to reason that most other teams would be reluctant to give them up. The organizations that might be willing can be split into two categories—those that are guaranteed Stanley Cup contenders and those that currently have multiple first round picks.

Any team can make a run at the NHL’s grand prize, but the list of Guaranteed Stanley Cup Contenders—and thus, teams that will definitely be “buying” at the Trade Deadline—is relatively large in 2018/19.

In the Eastern Conference—always a better fit for trades—the field of contenders includes the Boston Bruins, the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Toronto Maple Leafs, and the Tampa Bay Lightning. One can probably add the Pittsburgh Penguins and Washington Capitals to the list, despite their so-so starts.

In the Western Conference, the field is much more muddled but contains at the very least the Nashville Predators, the San Jose Sharks, and the Winnipeg Jets. The Colorado Avalanche, buoyed by the highest scoring line in the NHL, can probably be added to the mix. That makes for a total of ten buyers at the 2019 Trade Deadline, accounting for a third of the league—not a bad market at all.

The list of teams with multiple first-round draft picks is much smaller—it’s just the aforementioned Avalanche at the moment. This makes Colorado by far the best potential target for a first round-seeking trade, as they can freely deal their own selection while retaining Ottawa’s likely lottery pick.

The Buffalo Sabres will likely end up with three picks in the first round–dependant on conditions from previous deals with San Jose and St. Louis that will almost certainly be fulfilled—so they could be a potential top target if Rasmus Dahlin and Jack Eichel push them to playoff contention. The New York Rangers will also receive an additional first rounder if Tampa Bay wins the Cup, but they’re firmly within a rebuild at the moment.

Potential Trade Chips 

With a large field of teams that might be willing to trade a pick in the first round of the 2019 NHL Entry Draft, the question is raised of what the Canucks have to give up that would bring back something of such value. The majority of the organization’s top assets—names like Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, and Hughes—are so far off the table that they aren’t worth mentioning. Still, the Canucks have a handful of Potential Trade Chips that could feasibly return a first round pick.

Chris Tanev

A previous edition of the Trade Market took a look at the potential interest in Tanev around the league and found it to be reasonably high. Combine that with Tanev’s reputation as one of the best defensive defensemen in the game and a solid—if unspectacular—top pairing player, and one might assume that Tanev’s value could be measured in multitudes of first round draft picks. Unfortunately, his history of injuries probably means that a single mid- to late first round draft pick—plus an additional goodie or two—represents Tanev’s true market value. Tanev has another year left on his bargain contract, so the Canucks could feasibly trade him at any point between now and the Entry Draft.

Alex Edler

Edler has made it perfectly clear that he does not wish to leave Vancouver, but with the Sedins gone and the team undergoing a youth movement, this might be the year he finally does it. If the upcoming UFA does waive his No Trade Clause at the deadline, he’ll almost certainly return a first-round draft pick—at the very least. The 32-year-old is a minute-munching machine who has been playing some of his best two-way hockey over the past two seasons, and he would represent a significant improvement on nearly any contender’s top-four defence depth.

Brandon Sutter

Despite his unpopularity with certain sections of the fanbases, Sutter has a few things going for him that give him value around the league. He’s a center with strong defensive acumen that chips in offence at a reasonably consistent pace. Center depth is probably the most valued commodity for any would-be contender in the modern NHL, and that could feasibly create enough of a market for Sutter to return a late first round pick—though he’s unlikely to be the best center available. Sutter does have a full NTC—which turns into a modified one next season—that could complicate matters, as could the remaining two years on his contract. If the Canucks were to retain salary on Sutter, it would drastically increase his value, but that money would be on the books for the next two seasons. In other words, Sutter returning a first rounder is a bit of a long-shot.

Sven Baertschi

Baertschi is just 26 years old, putting him just outside the range of the rest of the burgeoning top-six forward core. As such, Baertschi is the most likely member of the group to be moved—though the Canucks don’t have much incentive to do so unless the return is suitably impressive. If Baertschi returns from injury and continues to score at the roughly 25-goal pace he has for the past two seasons, one could easily envision him returning a first round pick from a contender seeking an offensive boost to their roster. That being said, a late first rounder turning out to be as good a player as Baertschi is somewhat unlikely, so it probably doesn’t make sense to deal him for anything less than a pick in the teens.

In Other Words

It’s probably Tanev or Edler or bust when it comes to trading for additional first-round draft picks.

  • Burnabybob

    If the Canucks are well out of playoff contention (say six points) by the trade deadline, they should move Chris Tanev and whomever else they can get decent returns for. And I would also explore getting prospects in return, not just draft picks. It’s time to jump into the rebuild with both feet.

    • Peachy

      The problem with dealing for prospects is that the other team knows so much more about them; losing the trade would seem much more likely.

      Then again, Dahlen and Goldy were fantastic returns, so…

  • LACANUCK

    I don’t see anyway that Tanev is dealt this year. With Quinn and Olli coming up next year, some reliability will be needed. Best case is to deal Edler this year and Tanev next. 2 yrs in a row with two #1s would be great

  • Jim "Dumpster Fire" Benning

    “and he’s yet to totally flub an early pick” Well, that is a VERY debatable statement to say the least…
    Question: why is trading Juolevi not an option? He was recently listed as #9 on the Canucks top prospects under 24 ranking and continues to drop in value. Why not bring him up to play half the season at this point in sheltered 3rd pairing mins and see if his value can be raised? Or is this a non-starter for Benning similar to trading away the teams first? If Juolevi can fetch a 2nd potentially, we could ideally pair two 2nds for a 1st? There’s also the Edler/Tanev potential deals to consider as well.

    However all of this speculation is based on Benning actually being capable of making some real quality wheeling and dealing which he has not demonstrated to any positive degree in his tenure with the organization to date. Fingers crossed his negotiation skills somehow trend upward as the season progresses (for his benefit and the org as a whole also, and the fans!) Do a cannonball off the high board Jim and make the biggest splash you can in front of the home fans!

    • Nuck16

      We don’t need to protect Olli in the expansion draft, which is one reason not to trade him…we should not be trading such assets for ones this will need protecting, which means trading for a 1st rounder at a minimum, which is another crap shoot…at this point he’s more valuable to us than anyone…and if he succeeds he’ll sell more tickets here because of the emotional investment this city already has in him. Note that he’s inching close to a point per game in Utica, which is impressive.

    • bobdaley44

      Ya sure trade your twenty year old fifth overall draft pick defenceman, who’s leading his AHL team in assists, running the power play and playing PK for a second round pick. WTF!

  • truthseeker

    If a first rounder is the best the team could get for Tanev then it for sure not worth trading him. the value he will provide for the next five years is superior to the odds of almost any first round pick, short of the top few, turning into any kind of significant NHL player. If the pick is outside the top 10, as it would be in almost any of these trade scenarios, you start to drop around 20% or under that the player will ever be a top 6 F or Top 4 D.

    Even with the injuries the canucks should hold fast on Tanev and insist on an A prospect and a first round pick.

    Even Edler would be a bit of a waste only getting back a first round pick. He’s easily capable of giving another 2 to 3 years of solid defensive hockey. And it gets even better if he can be eased into a lower line role. Edler as a 2nd or 3rd pairing guy sound pretty amazing to me. Having said that, if they did trade Edler for only a first, I wouldn’t be super upset by that. It’s not enough, but it would make more sense than Tanev for only a first.

    Sutter, yes…for sure I’d take a first for him. And that’s not because I think he’s bad. I actually think he does provide the “stability” claimed. It really is noticeable when he’s out of the line up and Bo and EP have to struggle through road trips like this. But I want Gaudette to stay up, and I think he needs to be here learning the game. I’m willing to sacrifice what Sutter brings to give him that opportunity to learn. Could he bring a 1st back? I’d say it’s possible. Not so much because talent wise he’s “worth” a first, but more because as you said, center depth is so highly regarded for playoff teams. Much like Defense simply has inherent value built into the position, so does center. And in a way, a stable defensive center is probably fairly sought after for teams that have solid scoring centers on their first two lines. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised either way with Sutter. Maybe he could bring a first back, maybe not.

    Sven. He won’t bring a first back. No way. Not unless he comes back from injury and goes on some crazy record setting pace. I don’t think a 20 to 25 goal scoring winger brings back much in today’s NHL. There are just too many of them out there.

    Personally I think draft picks are highly over rated. Even first round picks. There is just so much failure or mediocrity that doesn’t seem to be accounted for by most fans, who at the same time assume 1st rounder automatically means “potential superstar”.

    I’d hate to see the canucks give up solid already contributing players simply to appease fans who enjoy hearing names called for some kids they’ve already over built in their heads. Yes, you need as many “shots” as you can, but you also have to be smart about it and not waste your savings on long shot lottery ticket odds.

      • Cageyvet

        Tanev doesn’t even look like the same player this year. While losing Edler and/or Tanev would be a significant blow to the team’s already porous defence, it has to be considered. They are not going to be part of a cup run, so plan for the long term and suffer a bit in the interim.

        Edler on an expiring deal for a 1st? I’d be thrilled.

        Tanev for a 1st? Yes if it comes with some add-ons as Roger mentioned.

        Sutter for a 1st? Yes, and while I’m not a hater at all, I think Beagle and Gaudette are enough to easily justify that move.

        Baertschi for a 1st? Probably. We miss Sven already, but that’s exacerbated by not having Boeser in the lineup. When I foresee the future top 6 Sven is probably not in it, so while I doubt we’d get a first, I think I’d take it.

        I’d love to have these options, but I’m not sure any or all of them would command this type of return. Ultimately you don’t want to throw away proven players, you need solid returns, but if you can find value I’d trade any, or even all, of them.

        Fantasy time to be sure, but we’re schlepping along without these guys half the time anyway. If you told me I could dump all 4 and have 5 1st round picks this year, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

      • speering major

        Yeah Tanev is a good player and would be attractive to a team gearing up for a playoff run. He’s exactly what a rebuilding team needs to cash in on before his contract expires. Signing an injury prone and aging player long term on a rebuilding team is a waste and a dumb risk. Somone with bite on Tanev in free agency and they will likely regret it like the majority of GM’s do with their summer spending

        Sutter also needs to go. The Canucks have 3 centers locked in. They also have Granlund, Guadette, and even Guance to fill in for him. Many of the top 10 this draft are solid looking Centers who could likely compete for a spot in their D+ 1 season. All those players could hold the third line center spot for 1.5 seasons while the team looks for someone to emerge. Same with RHD. Chatfield, Biega, Tryamkin, can hold Tanev ‘s place as the team looks for someone to emerge. It’s a rebuild, there’s going to be holes and soft spots in the lineup. Benning is doing a good job of building depth so he can fill those spots with serviceable players while he’s patient looking for difference makers to emerge and assets are accumulating

    • Dirk22

      The point of getting first rounders is it gives you a ‘shot’ at getting a difference maker. No guarantees but a ‘shot’ and a decent one at that depending on the position in the first round.

      We know what Tanev brings and we know what this team is with Tanev in the lineup. The Canucks would be worse off in the short term but what are they with Tanev playing?

      Also, to say he’s going to be valuable for the next 5 years is crazy. His overall game is already deteriorating without factoring in the injuries. What’s he going to be like at 33-34?

      You trade him because he’s one of the few real assets on this team that could get anything back. Maybe you draft another Boeser in the 20’s ..maybe not. At least you’re taking a chance to get better. Keep him and he fizzles into nothing while the team isn’t competing for anything significant.

      • truthseeker

        Yeah I already addressed getting “shots”. And the percentages of getting a “difference maker” outside the top ten are absolutely terrible.

        He’s 28. I suspect at 33 or 34 he’ll be similar to what Hamhuis became at that age, a good solid contributing veteran D man who would look great in a reduced role as a 2nd or 3rd pairing. Stability for when the team is in the playoffs, and a better 3rd line D to have than some useless “depth” defenseman who you’re stuck with because you traded all your “Tanevs” away.

        As for his game, he’s been fine this year considering they’re asking huge things from him with virtually no real support. At this point he should be already transitioning down into a second pairing role (with Edler) but the team’s D development hasn’t been good so there is no one to take that spot.

        Saying the canucks won’t be competitive in 3 to 4 years is ridiculous. They’re being “competitive” right now.

        Again…you’re giving way too much weight to the potentiality of a prospect and basically no weight to the value that a player already brings and can be reasonably predicted to bring based on past achievement.

        Here are the odds

        https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

        You can say whatever you want about “shots” but those are the numbers. If you have an issue with that methodology then fine. Comment and disprove his chart. But if not, you need to argue how a less than 30% chance at ever getting a D man that can play in your top 4 is somehow more valuable than at least another 3 years of Tanev actually being that. I don’t think you’ve supported your argument. “A bird in the hand…” and all that.

        • speering major

          Tanev’s career high is 70 games played. He averages less than 60. In the last two seasons he averaged below 50. This season isn’t trending well. He’s only getting older. When Tanev becomes a UFA is he going to command the value of when he’s healthy or when he’s hurt? Someone always overpays in free agency so that’s what his market rate will be. In the cap era if you are paying a top 4 D that misses 25 games a season that means you have to take depth players and give them significant minutes. The canucks now pay Tanev 4.5 Million and for the last two seasons half his minutes have been played by players like Gudbranson, Biega, Sautner, etc.

          Going forward it’s a high risk play to sign Tanev. Players don’t trend healthier as they get older. They don’t trend better in their 30’s. They don’t trend better as they accumulate injuries.

          This leads us to the present. What is having Tanev going to accomplish over the next 1.5 seasons? A playoff birth? That’s a long shot. The depth, leadership, etc are nice and all but in the big picture those are secondary

          Your statistics on draft value actually point towards moving on from Sutter and Tanev IMO. Yes adding two selections in the late first round would have a greater than 50% chance at landing at top 4 RHD if that’s the direction you wanted to go. On top of that you have your own first round selection, very early second rounder, and the rest of the draft. In addition to all of that you have a prospect pool that may already produce replacements in 2 seasons. The odds the current prospect pool + and early first rounder + 2 late first rounders + an early second rounder + the rest of the draft to replace a 3rd line center and top 4 RHD are statistically in Vancouver’s favor by a large margin.

          Keeping Tanev and Sutter over late first round picks doesn’t make sense if you realistically analyze the present, next 2 seasons, and the longer term. Benning has brought in a guy like Beagle who can provide much of the what Sutter brings to the table on the ice and in the room (but definitely a downgrade) at the cost of zero assets which frees him up to get assets that will be useful when the team has a realistic chance to compete. That’s how a rebuild works. Benning hasn’t been a UFA superstar but he needed to fill roster spots and he’s not giving up any assets. If he can fill roster spots while giving up no futures and then sell guys like Sutter and Tanev, that’s a great way to accelerate a rebuild.

          • truthseeker

            Where did I say he’d “trend better”?

            A playoff team making a trade to stabilize their back end for a cup run doesn’t care about any of that. Do you think the caps were thinking about losing Shattenkirk and factoring that value into their trade? They put one condition on getting a second round pick. That’s it. Two top prospects and a first round pick was what the caps paid for a couple of months of a good D man.

            If Tanev is playing healthy up to the trade deadline and looks to have no problems no cup run team is going to care about the past.

            As for resigning him, your making a lot of assumptions. In fact your entire post is based on a lot of assumptions. Assuming he will always be injured etc. I agree someone would probably pay him that rate in FA but hockey players tend to have a very conservative streak in them about FA and many of them like stability. It’s very possible that the canucks could resign him at a lower rate than they are already paying him based on the injury and decline thing and he might just take it because he’s comfortable here.

            Anyway…basically it comes down to your opinion vs mine on what Tanev is and what he brings. I think you are undervaluing him, you think I’m over valuing him. Fair enough. I say trade precedent proves teams will pay huge for guys in spite of age or injuries etc. Simple as that.

            They aren’t my statistics. lol. And now your making a very strange argument by adding Sutter into the equation, assuming a first from him and then adding the odds together. That wasn’t the discussion. Again, a ton of assumptions. The odds are most in the prospect pool will be failures.

            I agree keeping Sutter doesn’t make a lot of sense, but Tanev does.

  • Benning hasn’t acquired a first round pick since 2014 and has given away more second round picks than he’s added in his tenure. If he didn’t acquire high picks when the team was chasing last place, he’s not doing it when they might compete for a playoff spot.

    • TheRealPB

      To be fair though, several of the 2nds that he “gave away” were for shedding veterans like Bieksa and Garrison. This is also very much the coin of the cap-era NHL.

      • Dirk22

        Having only 1 second rounder total in the first 3 Benning drafts is by far the biggest stain on Benning’s tenure. Look at us 5 years later hoping that finally he’ll get some picks that ‘might’ play a role in 2-3-4 years. To not have done this right from the get-go is so inconceivable. Imagine if the Rangers or the Kings of today went into the next two drafts without a 2nd rounder – how ludicrous would that seem. That was the Canucks in 2015 and 2016.

        It’s been a point made numerous times but as long as you’re defending it I can’t let it go unsaid.

        • TheRealPB

          Dirk and Goon — I am not and have not been a blind Benning follower. I think there are all kinds of issues which have been discussed ad nauseam here, especially on the pro-side of player evaluations (Sutter, Gudbranson, etc) and trade deadline missteps. And the price paid for some of these acquisitions isn’t worth it BUT is not nearly as high as it’s sometimes made out to be. But the narrative that we should be so far further ahead on the rebuild ignores all kinds of realities — whether the context of the last days of the Sedins, the Aquilinis desire for playoff revenue, the Gillis regime leaving a bare prospect cupboard and a veteran-laden roster peppered with NTC/NMCs.

          Dirk, you are asking me what five Canucks excite me the most right now and that’s an easy answer – Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, and Demko. Juolevi and Virtanen I have on the cusp of that, even though many have already written them off as busts (both of you I think). And yes, they are all first rounders, most of them very high first rounders. If you’re point is that you need to rebuild through the draft I don’t disagree.

          But I also look at what the Canucks future looks like now and what it looked like when Benning came on board. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Yes, we could have had a few more 2nd round picks and yes it would be great to have more Gadovich’s and Linds in the system. But they aren’t the high end picks you are asking me about. In fact, returning the the actual topic of this posting, the problem with any of these scenarios in which we acquire more first round picks is that pretty much any team that is going to want a Tanev or an Edler is going to give us a pick in the high 20s at best. That really isn’t worth the cost when you consider the advantages of having even a broken down Tanev as a mentor and safety net for a young defense built around Juolevi and Hughes.

        • TheRealPB

          I don’t disagree with this. I’m just saying it’s not like he just gave away our own 2nds. My point is more that draft picks are used in the league all the time to try and leverage other deals. The teams that stockpile them for the most part are usually giving getting them by taking bad contracts in return (like Bolland for example). The Canucks have actually been pretty successful in GETTING draft picks for seemingly unmovable contracts; the problem is that the bets Benning places WITH those picks haven’t worked out (in terms of flipping them for underwhelming young players).

          Of all the 2nds that the Canucks have “given away” there’s really only one that I think is actually a regret, and that’s Rasmussen in Calgary. Even there the cost is arguably worth it in Baertschi. The Gudbranson trade at this point is basically him for McCann. Candella and Ang wash out and the 2nd ended up working out for no-one — Asplund is underperforming and Mascherin didn’t even sign with FLA and went back into the draft. McKeown is not an NHL regular and besides LA (who we made the trade with Vey for) traded him for the rental of Sekera anyway.

          I am not saying that we shouldn’t try to amass draft picks. I’m saying that the narrative that the rebuild would be so much farther ahead if only we’d held onto those picks is only true if somehow the Canucks made the perfect picks in those spots. It’s easy to say that the Canucks would be so much better with Brandon Montour or Christian Dvorak as 2nd round picks in 2014, or Rasmus Andersson or Vince Dunn in 2015, or Alex Debrincat or Samuel Girard in 2016. But would we really be that much ahead if we had Rasmus Asplund and Rasmus Andersson right now (instead of Gudbranson and Baertschi)? Those are the two players actually picked in those spots. Maybe the Canucks had better players on their draft boards. But all of this is just speculation that overvalues draft picks based on hindsight.

          • Couple things here:

            My claim wasn’t a normative one, it’s just a fact: Benning has not acquired picks during his time as GM. It clearly hasn’t been a priority for him. Outside of the 1st he got for Kesler, he has not acquired a first since then, and he has traded away more 2nds than he’s acquired – he’s a net zero for picks in the first two rounds since he took over as GM. Based on past behavior, I don’t think it’s likely that he goes out and acquires 1st or 2nd round picks this year.

            Regarding your comments about whether these picks would have held value – I find a lot of people (though I’m not specifically accusing you of this) defend Benning’s tenure as GM by citing his drafting prowess, but then defend his propensity to hemorrhage draft picks by saying he wouldn’t have had anything with them. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t know who the Canucks had on their draft board in the second round over the years, but I certainly would have preferred they have a chance to land a player like Rasmus Andersson or Alex Debrincat. It’s frustrating to see the Canucks miss out on the *opportunity* to add more impact prospects to their team when they’re supposed to be rebuilding.

          • Dirk22

            PB – name the 5 Canucks you’re most excited for right now and tell us how they were acquired.

            Stop defending the indefensible. It’s a management failure – he should have had multiple picks in each of those rounds. Instead he had a total of zero.

          • But Goon, recognize that Benning had to trade draft picks to refresh the roster. He had no prospects and the vets were encumbered by NTC/NMC. We’re in the process of transitioning from needing to trade draft picks, to stability, to having surplus talent to trade. Now we are reaping the benefits of Benning’s drafting prowess, we have Pettersson, Boeser, Gaudette with Lind, Hughes, Juolevi, Demko, Lockwood, Palmu, Jasek, Rathbone, Brisebois, DiPietro plus more on the way. We’re not going to keep all of them so you’ll see trades for draft picks eventually, and in perpetuity.

          • Dirk22

            Forever – in what world did Benning ‘have’ to trade draft picks?

            Think of this team’s performance over the last three years and try to reason why any draft pick needed to be dealt.

            ‘Refresh’ the roster? That’s a new one! Can’t believe people still defend these moves after witnessing 2015-2018.

          • North Van Halen

            Since I’m of the belief Benning had no choice but to try and compete the first 2 years, I’m not going to debate the asset mangement in the first couple of years.
            So that leaves the last 3 years, so my 2 questions are:
            1) What draft pick have the Canucks dealt in the last 3 years?
            2) and more importantly, what asset have the Canucks had to deal that could be replaced by a viable NHL player.
            This is the first year where trading a Sutter can be replaced by a Gaudette and trading an Edler can be replaced by Chatfield, Juolevi or, later, Hughes.
            I think this is the year we see if Benning can move the team forward where he’s in the position to do so both from above and below. He messes this up and he should go.

  • Beer Can Boyd

    The correct answer is, any one of these 4 players for a 1st round pick. In a heartbeat. I agree with Goon that Tanevs decline will be precipitous, mostly due to injuries, and the time to trade him is now. I also agree with truthseeker that no team is giving up a 1st for Baertschi. That would be robbery if Benning pulled that off.

  • 51Geezer

    Absolutely. Imagine five picks in the first round.
    Those trades would cripple the defence, but it would only go from mediocre to young and mistake-prone, and it wouldn’t be like that for long.

  • wojohowitz

    The easy choice is Rathbone to Boston as he looks like he has a excellent future and everybody wins. The Bruins presently sit at #8 in the standings so a 23rd overall for a 4th rounder is a good deal all around.

    Perhaps what should come first is to identify `The Mark`. Dorion in Ottawa stands out but that Burrows for Dahlin trade may make him hesitate to deal with Benning again. I have to wonder what Rob Blake in LA is thinking when he hired Willie. Is he that clueless? He also seems a little desperate sending Pearson out for Hagelin and he has some ugly contracts. Buffalo with three first rounders makes sense and they really need an upgrade on defence. Maybe Hutton and Gudbranson for a first and a prospect. It would be nice to rob Dumbass but I suspect he will do nothing rather than risk a mistake. Bergeron looks like he`s buying lottery tickets and hoping for a win so he`s another one. Maybe Tanev to Montreal for a first.

      • You want to acquire draft picks for their own sake, though, right? 1st is better than 4th, so that’s a win!

        Literally the only thing about wojohowitz’s post that makes any sense is trading Tanev to Montreal for a 1st, and that’s only happening if Montreal’s in a playoff spot at the deadline, which is by no means guaranteed.

        • Beer Can Boyd

          The only reason that a Rathbone trade would make sense is because he is a LHD, one of the only positions that the Canucks have depth at. But if he’s as good as Wojo thinks he is, the longer they keep him, the more he should be worth.

    • Burnabybob

      I could see trading Rathbone for a good RHD prospect. He looks promising, but possibly redundant with small defensemen Hughes and Stecher already in the system.

  • Of all of the players listed, I would hope that we could rent Edler for a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick with the understanding that we would re-sign him for a few more years in the summer. Edler’s agent says he wants to stay after this contract and he’s be a great anchor/mentor if Juolevi and Hughes make the jump next year. I’d ask for a hometown discount because Edler has only played 80+ games in only 2 of 13 seasons as a Canuck, he’s not going to get more robust.

  • Fred-65

    Frankly I can’t see any of the mentioned players bringing a 1st round pick. Both Edler and Tanev are injury prone and getting long in the tooth. If Rathbone blows away the NCAA maybe but if that’s the case why would we want to get rid of him. Baertchi is too inconsistent and to be honest does operate on the outside most night , not what you’re looking for in the play-offs. And besides Edlers agent has already thrown doubts about the trade and re-sign as he has no guarantees they would keep their word. I don’t expect much movement unless we’re out of the play offs and we trade some fringe players for low picks such as MDZ or Gagner … just insurance for a team going to the play-off. One player IMO that might excel in the Play-offs is Beiga but again give up little and get back little

    • Reality Man

      This fanbase is just brutal at over valuing players. First rule of todays NHL, no one wants your veteran deadwood, especially injury prone rentals for first round draft picks.

      There is no one on the nucks over 25 that will bring back a first rounder or high end prospect – in fact I will donate a grand to Ronald McDonald House if that happens by the trade deadline. Deluded.

      • truthseeker

        What’s brutal is fans who don’t understand just how valuable D is to playoff teams. How many McDonagh and Shattenkirk trades need to happen before people clue into how much teams will over pay for veteran D men?

        I’ll hold you to that promise.

    • wojohowitz

      I don`t see Edler being forced into any trade. He is in control of his situation and I see only one destination acceptable to him. That would be a 3 year extension at $6m per and only to Tampa to play with Hedman and a chance to win a cup. and that would cost the first overall Lightning their first round pick. The question is whether Tampa believes this is their year. That said if no trade is made I see Edler re-signing with the Canucks also for 3 years at $6m per.

      If you`re unfamiliar with the Rathbone story it`s this; He grew up in the Boston area and his first priority is family. If nothing changes then I see him playing all four years at Harvard and then signing with the Bruins as a free agent anyways. The kid is a rising star as a freshman playing on their top pairing. Even Quinn Hughes (I believe) was not a top pairing defenceman as a freshman.

      I think so poorly of the Canuck defence that I would start shipping players out and rebuilding their defence today – nearly all of them.

      • Matty T

        Hahaha wojo off his meds again. The Lightning don’t want or need Edler to challenge for a cup you utter fool, and they sure as hell aren’t giving up a first rounder for him, they are a well run franchise… ridiculous post! lmfao

          • Matty T

            Oh dear, just when the board was having a fantastic day of great hockey talk, the sad concussed super troll lithers in and ruins it.

            Excuse you…
            “Suck my d(i)ck,yoU pr(i)ck. Had enough of the P-Q-W and Jackson’s gong show of juvenile regurgutations.” – Bud Poile… meltdown personal attack against staff and poster – YESTERDAY!

            Walk on loser, tail between leg,s and don’t come back as jackson told you, personl attack troll.

      • Using that same logic, we don’t need to draft any local players because we’ll just sign all of the NCAA prospects after 4 years. So we’ll automatically get Alex Newhook after 4 years? And we should have lost Boeser to Minnesota because he’s from there. The threat of losing NCAA draft picks after 4 years is so overblown.

        • Fred-65

          Maybe a fly in the ointment for this speculation is injuries, eg. Boston currently is suffering from a lot of D’men on the injured list the latest is Chara looks like he’s out so ….. if some ones in the play off and have injuries to cover off it might due to desperation make the odd D’man draw interest. I think we’re looking at this as the current situation existing. What it’s like at the dead line is all together different

  • Kanuckhotep

    I’ve always agreed with the notion that teams are usually/mostly not interested in another team’s secondary veterans and am also on board with the observation that the fan base is over rating the players outlined in this article as being worthy of a 1st round draft pick. At the TDL Mr. Benning will have to have other teams call HIM instead of the other way around in all likelihood. Edler and Tanev? One or the other may/can go but not both. You need some reliable D vet back there with Juolevi and Hughes coming soon. But if Benning can get youth, reasonable picks and prospects for any one of these guys mentioned I’m all for it.

    • It’s Benning’s job as GM to sell other teams on his players, to shop the players he wants to move around and get the best deal. He should not be sitting back passively waiting for calls.

      By the end of this season, Stetcher and Hutton will have over 200 games of experience and Gudbranson will be well over 400. They are not hurting for experience on the blue line, even without Edler and Tanev. Also, trading Edler will have no bearing on whether he’ll be in Vancouver next year – he’s a UFA whether he’s traded or not.

      • canuckfan

        every team has scouts so they know every player on the other teams and who they have in their farm system. So selling other teams on how great our players are is not really going to work but if they call looking for a player Benning will then look at what the other team is offering or he will call other teams and tell them who in the Canucks system is available. He knows other team weakness and can bait them with a player who may help that other team.

    • Cageyvet

      I’m in agreement with you, but I’m going to disagree slightly in that you may have no choice but to move Edler, we don’t know if he would re-sign here for a term/value that is palatable.

      Given his UFA status I have no choice but to assume the worst and consider him a must-trade, assuming he agrees to waive his no-trade clause.

      That leaves you with a decision on Tanev, and I can’t consider him untouchable on a rebuilding team. If the deal is good enough, you move him, but I personally doubt you’d find a deal that exceeds his present and future mentoring value to this team.

      Essentially I agree with you, but I can envision a scenario where it makes sense to move them both. You can always sign a competent free agent defenseman to help mentor. You may overpay, but if the return was good enough for those 2 then I’d be okay with the inevitable FA overpayment to help re-shape the team in general.

  • LACANUCK

    This article is pure speculation because we all know what the reality is. Edler has a NTC and has said he doesn’t want to go anywhere else. Granted the best of both worlds is trading him for a 1st then resigning him on a 2 yr club friendly deal.

    As far as Tanev goes JB has made it clear he wants solid vets to support the young talent. Again with Q and Olli coming that is JBs MO. If Quinn and Olli excel next year, then JB will feel better about a Tanev trade.

    • Bud Poile

      Agreed on the speculation.
      Edler’s agent just spoke on this subject the day before yesterday:

      Rick Dhaliwal
      ‏ @DhaliwalSports
      Nov 14
      Stowe on if Edler would waive NTC and then re-sign with Van in summer, “The problem from my side as his rep, there is no gaurentee they can bring him back. If he waives, no gaurentee the #Canucks can resign him July 1st. Its wishing and hoping and speculation.”
      Rick Dhaliwal
      ‏ @DhaliwalSports
      Nov 14
      Stowe on the fans and media fascination for Edler to waive his NTC : “Fascination might be putting it mildly it’s an obsession.” #Canucks

        • Cageyvet

          We’ll miss you when you inevitably disappear, Matty T, and resurface under yet another username. I will give your posts some credence if you’re still posting regularly next season, so we can have discussions that aren’t void of the slightest shred of accountability.

          You represent the worst of the troll world, the hit-and-run type who use 20-20 hindsight with a history of about 3 months of your own commentary.

          Much like the CA writers, I find your ilk often speak about the mistakes as if they were glaringly apparent and the successes as well. As if everyone would have picked Boeser but only an idiot would pick Virtanen.

          I have asked CA more than once to use their draft rankings to re-draft the last 5 Canucks drafts as if they faced the exact same board as the Canucks at the time and took their highest-ranked pick, and see what the team looked like. I suspect no Boeser and Petterson, but to be fair, I suggested they could take their most successful individual staffer”s picks over the consensus. Anyone can criticize, show us what you would have done.

          While CA hasn’t done that, so perhaps I’ll use their consensus and perform that exercise one day and post it, at least they published their rankings and would have to own it. Your kind just claim genius with your zero-accountability hindsight and nothing to back up your claims. Worse, you come and go like farts from an incontinent pet…..it’s a stench you can do without, you can’t control it, and while it dissipates rapidly you know another one’s coming all too soon.

  • Puck Viking

    Trade all 4 of them and use all those picks on drafting defense. They are wasting years of Bo, Pete, Brock etc by having such a terrible defense.

    You cant use magic beans to acquire legit prospects. YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOMETHING TO GET SOMETHING.

    This team is years away and will always be years away if they dont fix the defense.

    With our top 5 pick and yes we are that bad and will be picking top 5 no matter how people think magic will some how get them in to the playoffs should be used on a forward as best player available BUT every other pick in this draft, including those acquired from dumping every veteran possible on the team should be used on defense and goalies.

    If we come away with say Dach at 3(picked a random number where we might pick) and 10 defense and 2 goalies then that will be a successful draft. Anything else is a disaster.

    • Can’t say Benning isn’t trying to fix the defense. 14 of his 34 draft picks (41%) have been on defensemen. He’s drafted a d-man in every round except the 6th. We already have everything except a 2nd legit Top 2 defenseman in the pipeline. Benning just needs to continuing to draft well and find the BPA with every pick.

      • Puck Viking

        ya i can if he was he would have dumped vets years ago.. the longer we wait the longer until this team does anything.. every year wasted is a year further from us makig the playoffs, defense is horrible only way to change it is dump vets for picks and draft nothing else.

  • Rodeobill

    If Guddy keeps playing well, who knows what kind of interest he may have too?
    Tanev has the added value of play RHD, none seem to be popping up as sure shots in this year’s draft either. He also is so reliable that you can dump your worst LHD with him and he will still pick up the slack most times. I’m all for moving him, but the price better be right. He helps as much in the D zone as EP does in the O zone, rather, he SAVES us the game on some nights, and he will save whatever coach he is playing for a few more grey hair.