Problem with that, and it was discussed last year with trading the Oilers pick is how many teams are willing to move a D like that. McDonagh, Shattenkirk etc. are the guys that might be available. I could see CAR trying for Marc Staal, but in TB's case they might be better drafting a franchise type forward (MacK, Drouin, Barkov) to compliment Stamkos.
- Jack-artist

Exactly my point. There are limited players that fit that description that may be available. It ups their market value and makes them a high price commodity.

Doesn't matter anyways because I think teams will do all they can to keep young talented guys and dump other ways instead.

i realize that all those teams need help. i do not see Tampa moving their pick and taking probably drouin. the way Conacher played with Stamkos this year makes me think that Drouin would be a perfect fit.

Philly could trade down because they have their eye on Darnell Nurse. he fits a flyer style of hockey very well and the fact that the philly media would be all over the nephew of their former golden boy Donovan Mcnabb it would be good for Philly publicity as well. likely gone by 11 Philly could easily move down

Carolina has a solid top 6, they have size and the have skill. other than Ryan Murphy i don't know much of their prospects, but the experts say that the need defense, i know a lot of people say do not draft for need, that is easily done via trade and free agent. that may not be easily done for a lot of markets. places do have to worry about filling needs through the draft, not every team is going to be able to get the players they want in trade and free agents and maybe Carolina is one of the teams who sees their chance to get better by getting more.

Carolina is not a bad team, with a healthy Cam Ward they probably do better and don't even get a top ten pick imo. for that reason i could see them trading 1 pick for 3 or 2 and a prospect to fill needs that way. most will probably disagree with me, but I'm just trying to give my reasoning
- CrustyRooster

Always take BPA. That's the only way to do it IMO.

i dont think your window is fully closed yet.
the sedins arent done yet. kesler looked healthy and dominant for the first time in ages against SJ, no more golatending circus, and depth on defence.
along with few of the right depth moves could put u back in an elite category imo.

i think a few more mistakes it could shut fast, but im not ready to count out the nucks yet. a veteran team with many solid pieces that KNOWS how to win. still a playoff team without question
- hugefemale dog77

The Sedins being pending UFAs is huge.

Do the Canucks REALLY extend them to any sort of terms that would effectively force us to rebuild\retool AROUND them? I have said this multiple times on these boards recently - primarily on Esplen's blog, but point being, The twins are undoubtedly still money regular season players - BUT, their game is patience, and possession based. Once the Post season kicks in, and the playing style shifts, and officiating shifts with it... unfortunately they are typically easily shut down. They rely on lots of room and time to find passing lanes - these luxuries simply do not exist in the post season. So you either have to evolve your game to a more explosive, north\south, hustle-and-break style, or you have to raise your level of play so much that you IMPOSE your style on the opposition. The Sedins do neither. They keep slamming their heads against a brick wall, and the frustration is starting to show.

Anyway, so that's back to the point - what to do with them? How much of a hometown discount will they take? They could easily still get $5.5-6 on the open market. It makes no sense for the Canucks to sign them to any more than $4, imo. Unless you want more first round exits.

Always take BPA. That's the only way to do it IMO.
- Iggysbff

i agree as well, but im suggesting that there is no way that all 30 teams share that opinion with you

Yah I'm not saying I wouldn't want Benn. Just that all that would be is a lateral move that would domino other moves. We have holes to fill and just moving a bunch of guys around isn't going to fix that.
- Iggysbff

Benn would be a great addition for you guys. But I don't think that DAL would trade him unless they got a 'blow-me-away' offer. Would you guys consider trading Yaks (or Hall, Ebs I guess) Gagner and your 1st for him. Because that's likely what it might take. But for you guys you would have the sick skills of RNH for the 1st line and the raw power of Benn for the 2nd line center postion.

Hall-RNH-Ebs

PRV-Benn- UFA (or Hemmer if you keep him)

but it doesnt change the fact that its clearly not our ONLY problem. just one of them.
- hugefemale dog77

It's the main one. If those kids were more rounded we are in the playoffs this past year. Probably out in 4 games, but we'd be in.

Richard Cloutier: Just the Way Your Mother Likes It TREBEK!
- Maxbone

fixed

Exactly my point. There are limited players that fit that description that may be available. It ups their market value and makes them a high price commodity.

Doesn't matter anyways because I think teams will do all they can to keep young talented guys and dump other ways instead.
- Iggysbff

Hence why we have to build a better rounded d. 3 2nd pairings.

Benn would be a great addition for you guys. But I don't think that DAL would trade him unless they got a 'blow-me-away' offer. Would you guys consider trading Yaks (or Hall, Ebs I guess) Gagner and your 1st for him. Because that's likely what it might take. But for you guys you would have the sick skills of RNH for the 1st line and the raw power of Benn for the 2nd line center postion.

Hall-RNH-Ebs

PRV-Benn- UFA (or Hemmer if you keep him)
- TandA4Flames

I think that is an overpayment. I like what Benn brings but a young former first overall, Decent top 6 offensive centre, and the 7th overall is too much.

I'd do:

Eberle and the 7th for Benn and Chiasson or Ritchie.

It's the main one. If those kids were more rounded we are in the playoffs this past year. Probably out in 4 games, but we'd be in.
- Lahey

debateable for sure

i think our biggest problem was having the worst defensive group in the league.

i think our kids were adequate enough minues some obvious deficiencies, but had no help whatsoever.

regardless of age or maturity, thornton and kopitar have off nights. and the rest of their team picks up the slack and can still win.

hall and nuge have an off night or show their age, we lose.

which truly good team do you know doesnt have some secondary scoring, a better bottom 6 and a better defence than us? all have at least 2 of those.

double

Benn would be a great addition for you guys. But I don't think that DAL would trade him unless they got a 'blow-me-away' offer. Would you guys consider trading Yaks (or Hall, Ebs I guess) Gagner and your 1st for him. Because that's likely what it might take. But for you guys you would have the sick skills of RNH for the 1st line and the raw power of Benn for the 2nd line center postion.

Hall-RNH-Ebs

PRV-Benn- UFA (or Hemmer if you keep him)
- TandA4Flames

cmon man

id love to have benn. he could change our team.

but ur way undervaluing the assets we're giving.

a first overall, a guy who was just on pace for 65+ and a 7th overall?

I think that is an overpayment. I like what Benn brings but a young former first overall, Decent top 6 offensive centre, and the 7th overall is too much.

I'd do:

Eberle and the 7th for Benn and Chiasson or Ritchie.
- ystoil

That's my point though. You would have to overpay to get a player like Benn. He's young and gritty; you'd likely have him for another decade; he REALLY complements your skilled forwards. Even with the overpay, that trade, IMO, betters your team. Maybe you could negotiate a defenseman in there as well.

Bold maneuver, but one that helps now and in the long run.

debateable for sure

i think our biggest problem was having the worst defensive group in the league.

i think our kids were adequate enough minues some obvious deficiencies, but had no help whatsoever.

regardless of age or maturity, thornton and kopitar have off nights. and the rest of their team picks up the slack and can still win.

hall and nuge have an off night or show their age, we lose.

which truly good team do you know doesnt have some secondary scoring, a better bottom 6 and a better defence than us? all have at least 2 of those.
- hugefemale dog77

Isn't secondary scoring Yaks, Hemsky and Gagner on line 2?

Our 6-9 scorers had 41 pts
Detroit had 29
Chicago had 49
LA had 42

What are we really looking for? Something that doesn't exist?

Our defense is an issue, but having that top 6 that really doesn't play two-way hockey is a big problem yet again. It will come with age though.

debateable for sure

i think our biggest problem was having the worst defensive group in the league.

i think our kids were adequate enough minues some obvious deficiencies, but had no help whatsoever.

regardless of age or maturity, thornton and kopitar have off nights. and the rest of their team picks up the slack and can still win.

hall and nuge have an off night or show their age, we lose.

which truly good team do you know doesnt have some secondary scoring, a better bottom 6 and a better defence than us? all have at least 2 of those.
- hugefemale dog77

this exactly, if the young guys for the oilers dont get at least 2 goals, the oilers lose 80% of the time it seems. if we can have some reliable 3rd and 4th line scoring it would be wonders.

i also think it is a big advantage to have your best forwards be your best PKers. Datsyuk, Toews, Bergeron all these guys are so lethal at every moment in the game regardless of who has an advantage

if the oilers can teach Hall and RNH to be solid on the PK it would create just another offensive threat

I think that is an overpayment. I like what Benn brings but a young former first overall, Decent top 6 offensive centre, and the 7th overall is too much.

I'd do:

Eberle and the 7th for Benn and Chiasson or Ritchie.
- ystoil

underpayment

is there any oiler fan that wouldnt deal eberle/7th for benn/ritchie??

Lets trade Hemsky for stamkos... ""

cmon man

id love to have benn. he could change our team.

but ur way undervaluing the assets we're giving.

a first overall, a guy who was just on pace for 65+ and a 7th overall?
- hugefemale dog77

Again, I'm not undervaluing anything. I know how much those players I suggested mean to you; and likely, Benn to DAL. It's an obvious overpay, big time.

Think of it this way, who would you rather have Benn, gritty, big, strong and tough or Gagner, gritty but small and not a great skater. Especially when you think of what else remains on the team and what he ould add. I would rather have Benn personally. So, how much more do you have to give to make it worthwhile to the other team.

That's my point though. You would have to overpay to get a player like Benn. He's young and gritty; you'd likely have him for another decade; he REALLY complements your skilled forwards. Even with the overpay, that trade, IMO, betters your team. Maybe you could negotiate a defenseman in there as well.

Bold maneuver, but one that helps now and in the long run.
- TandA4Flames

This is something I have always wondered. Why is it that people always say you would have to over pay for a guy like Benn. But they don't think other teams would have to overpay for a Hall, Nuge, Yak? MacT said it as well. The Oilers know how hard it was to get those guys so if anyone wanted one of them, THE OTHER TEAM would have to overpay.

So Benn straight across for one of Hall, Nuge, Ebs, Yak would be more likely. Neither side would have to add.

Isn't secondary scoring Yaks, Hemsky and Gagner on line 2?

Our 6-9 scorers had 41 pts
Detroit had 29
Chicago had 49
LA had 42

What are we really looking for? Something that doesn't exist?

Our defense is an issue, but having that top 6 that really doesn't play two-way hockey is a big problem yet again. It will come with age though.
- Lahey

im not interested in arguing semantics with you.

again, i believe that our defence was by far our biggest problem.

hall had 50 pts and was + player. nuge was too.
eberle and prv were barely in the minus.

if you're saying this same team with those kids 5 years older makes the playoffs, i suppose u might be right. its certainly possible and debateable as i said. but still not a good team, because we have many problems.

and its not like we couldnt have also possibly made the playoffs with a better bottom 6, more size and a much better defence either. so whats really your point?
we cant move time forward, so maybe we should concentrate on stuff we can control

Again, I'm not undervaluing anything. I know how much those players I suggested mean to you; and likely, Benn to DAL. It's an obvious overpay, big time.

Think of it this way, who would you rather have Benn, gritty, big, strong and tough or Gagner, gritty but small and not a great skater. Especially when you think of what else remains on the team and what he ould add. I would rather have Benn personally. So, how much more do you have to give to make it worthwhile to the other team.
- TandA4Flames

you're talking about blowing their socks off and i see your point. but i just dont feel like its good asset management.

id rather have benn than any of those assets u named for sure.
but to give them all in a package just cause we can, instead of maybe using one of them to address another need isnt wise imo. its a wasted asset.

if for example yaks and a first wasnt enough, it'd have to at least be close. and we could find another piece that may have some value to add in.

all the while using a valuable asset like gagner+ to address another need.

im not interested in arguing semantics with you.

again, i believe that our defence was by far our biggest problem.

hall had 50 pts and was + player. nuge was too.
eberle and prv were barely in the minus.

if you're sayin g this same team with those kids 5 years older makes the playoffs, i suppose u might be right. its certainly possible and debateable as i said. but still not a good team, because we have many problems.

and its not like we couldnt have made the playoffs with a better bottom 6, more size and a much more defence either. so whats really your point?
we cant move time forward, so maybe we should concentrate on stuff we can control
- hugefemale dog77

If they played smarter with the puck I don't see why not. We were in a playoff position at the TDD, so why is it that far fetched?

Not denying d is a big problem.

My point is patientance. This team won't go anywhere until the kids are playing better as a whole.

I was actually going to suggest that we swap out our assistant coach. And maybe the offence and defence coach as well. When's the last time we've had any of those switches? Aside from when Renney stepped up when Pat Quinn left. The players might not be getting the proper coaching they need in they're areas of weakness. I don't know. It's just a guess. But one thing is for sure. I'm getting really tired of trying to find the right solution for this team. And I'm sorry, but I can't see Benn being the solution. Especially if you're trading Yak and a first round pick. No. Thank. You. We've tried almost everything in the book. So you gotta look back and see what we haven't done yet. Such as TRADE PLAYERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR TOO LONG. So, Hemsky and Horcoff. Been here too long. Need to go. And both way overpaid for what they do. And now that MacT is in charge, and as much as I believe he will bring change, he has a strong connection with Horcoff and Hemsky since he's coached them for so many years and he's not going to trade or move them. That's my fear. I just want to see something done. I want some results. As much as any of us do.

If they played smarter with the puck I don't see why not. We were in a playoff position at the TDD, so why is it that far fetched?

Not denying d is a big problem.

My point is patientance. This team won't go anywhere until the kids are playing better as a whole.
- Lahey

if theyre the leaders and the go to guys going forward then its tough to argue against your point. we'll never be great until they are.

but neither will this team go much furthur without many other holes addressed as well. better yes with just time for the kids. but not a great team with the same roster. wouldnt we also have been better with the rangers d group? or the sharks bottom 6?

time with these kids was always gonna be an issue. no reason we cant be working at other areas.

and as i said, i also think this team coulda been a playoff team with the same kids, but all of the things i mentioned along with them.

Isn't secondary scoring Yaks, Hemsky and Gagner on line 2?

Our 6-9 scorers had 41 pts
Detroit had 29
Chicago had 49
LA had 42

What are we really looking for? Something that doesn't exist?

Our defense is an issue, but having that top 6 that really doesn't play two-way hockey is a big problem yet again. It will come with age though.
- Lahey

A sense of purpose. World peace.