Post-Game Talk: 2014 NHL Draft Day 2

[Bleach Clean]

I don't think the poster was saying we are being referred to as _the_ winners but that we are "winners" as in "among those that did best".

Honestly I think most people on this board would admit we had at least a productive draft in the first 5 rounds. Yes the last two seem like stinkers but the damage is mainly "philosophical" as opposed to "applied". We all know the odds of any pick in that range turning into anything are minuscule. Yes the thinking stinks but the actual harm is nearly zero.

That non-Canuck fans and analysts generally view our draft as a positive should count for something as we rarely if ever get unwarranted praise from anyone.

I think the harm is legitimate. Not because the odds are already stacked against each pick, but because the methodology hasn't changed: This team is still enigmatic at the draft table. I am almost never assured that they get value at each position.

Demko's fine as he was ranked as a 1st round talent. However, this team has had first hand experience with goaltending value via trade. What is a matured goalie actually worth these days? If not much, why sink a high pick into one? That's more process than value, but it is about realized value too...

The rest is just questionable work. Sometimes I think I overvalue what other teams are doing because of their history. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, those teams consistently impress on the draft floor. Year in, year out. That's what this team needs to get to in order to stand a chance, and they're just so far away...

To anyone paying attention, were we going with BPA's in these rounds generally ? or going way off the board ?

I'd say BPA until pick 66. Then it became more about which scout was allowed to pick, rather than getting value IMO.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think the harm is legitimate. Not because the odds are already stacked against each pick, but because the methodology hasn't changed: This team is still enigmatic at the draft table. I am almost never assured that they get value at each position.

Demko's fine as he was ranked as a 1st round talent. However, this team has had first hand experience with goaltending value via trade. What is a matured goalie actually worth these days? If not much, why sink a high pick into one? That's more process than value, but it is about realized value too...

The rest is just questionable work. Sometimes I think I overvalue what other teams are doing because of their history. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, those teams consistently impress on the draft floor. Year in, year out. That's what this team needs to get to in order to stand a chance, and they're just so far away...







I'd say BPA until pick 66. Then it became more about which scout was allowed to pick, rather than getting value IMO.

Agreed on picks 6, 24, and 36 being bpa's.

-----

When you talk about values of a mature goalie, we've already seen the value we get out of a top 3 dman.

Trade values league wide, especially around this team are unpredictable.

We see Ryan Callahan move for Marty St. Louis yet the pluses added are two 1st rounders? A 36 year old forward with one year left gleaned an expiring contract of a 1/2 line tweener winger plus 2 1sts.

Yet we can't get more than that for Kesler. A player 6 years younger. Signed for 2 years. One team on St Louis' list too.

3rd rounder bought is a 4th liner. A 2nd an AHL player.

We paid a top 4 dman for a 2nd.

I probably will never discuss trade value again.

So much is out of whack here, predicting it would be like predicting the lottery.

 

[CanaFan]

I think the harm is legitimate. Not because the odds are already stacked against each pick, but because the methodology hasn't changed: This team is still enigmatic at the draft table. I am almost never assured that they get value at each position.

Demko's fine as he was ranked as a 1st round talent. However, this team has had first hand experience with goaltending value via trade. What is a matured goalie actually worth these days? If not much, why sink a high pick into one? That's more process than value, but it is about realized value too...

The rest is just questionable work. Sometimes I think I overvalue what other teams are doing because of their history. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, those teams consistently impress on the draft floor. Year in, year out. That's what this team needs to get to in order to stand a chance, and they're just so far away ....

Legitimate? Yes as it is non-zero.

Significant? I'm not sure it was.

In a draft where I think good picks were made at 6 and 24 and at least solid picks were made in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th then the _relative_ impact of what were admittedly poor picks in the 6th and 7th is relatively small.

I agree that on a "philosophical" level there is some concern about the picks as they represent a line of thinking that is likely to be problematic. And it is puzzling why Benning would go so off-course all of a sudden when his previous 5 picks all had some level of legitimate upside supporting them.

Was it a bone that he tossed to a couple of scouts? Did he do it to "test" his scouts recommendations? Or did he legitimately see something in these kids?

I honestly don't know and while the picks do bug me, I am choosing to focus on the first 5 picks as being more indicative of what I hope the new regime will be about.

 

[DCantheDDad]

I think the harm is legitimate. Not because the odds are already stacked against each pick, but because the methodology hasn't changed: This team is still enigmatic at the draft table. I am almost never assured that they get value at each position.

Demko's fine as he was ranked as a 1st round talent. However, this team has had first hand experience with goaltending value via trade. What is a matured goalie actually worth these days? If not much, why sink a high pick into one? That's more process than value, but it is about realized value too...

The rest is just questionable work. Sometimes I think I overvalue what other teams are doing because of their history. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But really, those teams consistently impress on the draft floor. Year in, year out. That's what this team needs to get to in order to stand a chance, and they're just so far away...

Also, the new management team hasn't been in place long enough to do anything with the scouting process. The tweaks and changes they want to make will start taking effect next year. But why people like Delorme are still employed is beyond me.

 

[me2]

Also, the new management team hasn't been in place long enough to do anything with the scouting process. The tweaks and changes they want to make will start taking effect next year. But why people like Delorme are still employed is beyond me.

Benning, an scouting expert currently active, seemed more than happy with the picks, he knew the methodology, approved of the reasoning, knew the players backgrounds, stats. He fully approved the picks.

 

[Jack Tripper]

i think benning went with bpa with the 1st three picks, which means that the canucks are naturally going to be declared as one of the 'winners' of draft day simply because they had 3 picks within the first 36...if they weren't then something went seriously wrong

other than the forsling / gradin pick, scouting staff kind of lost the plot as they tend to do in later rounds...it's a holdover from previous regimes, so benning could create alot of good will in my book by giving much more authority to crawford/gradin rather than ron delorme who probably has sucked more value out of the canucks franchise than any other canucks employee in the past decade

 

[vanuck]

Benning, an scouting expert currently active, seemed more than happy with the picks, he knew the methodology, approved of the reasoning, knew the players backgrounds, stats. He fully approved the picks.

Apparently the guys we took with our 6th and 7th rounders are now the product of the scouts being given "direction".

 

[Bleach Clean]

Legitimate? Yes as it is non-zero.

Significant? I'm not sure it was.

In a draft where I think good picks were made at 6 and 24 and at least solid picks were made in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th then the _relative_ impact of what were admittedly poor picks in the 6th and 7th is relatively small.

I agree that on a "philosophical" level there is some concern about the picks as they represent a line of thinking that is likely to be problematic. And it is puzzling why Benning would go so off-course all of a sudden when his previous 5 picks all had some level of legitimate upside supporting them.

Was it a bone that he tossed to a couple of scouts? Did he do it to "test" his scouts recommendations? Or did he legitimately see something in these kids?

I honestly don't know and while the picks do bug me, I am choosing to focus on the first 5 picks as being more indicative of what I hope the new regime will be about.

I think our opinion differs here because I was OK with what they did with #6, #24 and their 5th. Outside of those picks, I did not feel that they got true value at their other positions. I also felt as though they should have kept pick #50 themselves, but whatever.

Anyways, here's a radio hit from Trevor Linden. In it, he describes Benning's influence on the Tryamkin pick. Give it a listen:

https://soundcloud.com/team-radio-interviews/trevor-linden-with-sekeres-and-price-june-28

 

[Vankiller Whale]

https://soundcloud.com/team-radio-interviews/trevor-linden-with-sekeres-and-price-june-28

I nearly died when in response to being asked about Kesler saying the team was at least a couple of years away from contending Linden says:

"That's just his opinion, but it is what it is"

 

[CanaFan]

I think our opinion differs here because I was OK with what they did with #6, #24 and their 5th. Outside of those picks, I did not feel that they got true value at their other positions. I also felt as though they should have kept pick #50 themselves, but whatever.

Anyways, here's a radio hit from Trevor Linden. In it, he describes Benning's influence on the Tryamkin pick. Give it a listen:

https://soundcloud.com/team-radio-interviews/trevor-linden-with-sekeres-and-price-june-28

I think we disagree in magnitude more than direction if anything. I am really high on Virtanen obviously and I recall discussions about the merits of taking McCann at 10 back in Feb (before his swoon) when it looked like our pick would be there, so I'm quite happy with getting him at 24.

Demko I like as a longer-term investment even though goalies can be harder to project.

50/McKeown for Vey seems fair value for me as his progression since 2009 has been better than we are statistically likely to get at 50. Plus I can understand Benning's desire to acquire some more "now" assets.

Tryamkin is an interesting pick. Not a pick I was expecting to see but there is some upside there. Benning obviously see's something so I'm willing to give the pick a chance.

Seems like we both approve the Forsling pick and both dislike the Pettit and Stewart picks. Where we disagree I guess is how much these last 2 picks should overshadow the rest of the draft. Not going to be precise here but assuming we use historical percentages for draft pick success by round, I'm guessing the expected success of the 6th and 7th rounders is somewhere south of 5%. So if I use that relative weight in how I "value" the poor quality of these late picks it maybe drops the overall draft from a B to a B minus for me. Small negative in a day where I liked a lot of their other picks.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Outside of those picks, I did not feel that they got true value at their other positions.

In regards to getting value with Demko - if everyone around the league has stopped valuing goalies highly, do you then stand to make a shrewd pick if you go against the grain? As in, where would Demko have been drafted 10 years ago? Top 10? Seems possible, considering he was far and away the best goaltender in the draft.

In general, I dislike the idea of drafting goalies. But at some point, you will find yourself in a position where the value is undeniable. Is that at 36? Tough to say. But you can definitely make a case for it.

Benning also got to see Demko a lot last season. Based on Benning's body of work as a scout in Buffalo, he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt a bit. Definitely moreso than the previous regime IMO.

 

[TARS]

In regards to getting value with Demko - if everyone around the league has stopped valuing goalies highly, do you then stand to make a shrewd pick if you go against the grain? As in, where would Demko have been drafted 10 years ago? Top 10? Seems possible, considering he was far and away the best goaltender in the draft.

In general, I dislike the idea of drafting goalies. But at some point, you will find yourself in a position where the value is undeniable. Is that at 36? Tough to say. But you can definitely make a case for it.

Benning also got to see Demko a lot last season. Based on Benning's body of work as a scout in Buffalo, he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt a bit. Definitely moreso than the previous regime IMO.

I think it's a great pick at 36 when you've already picked two forwards in a draft. We were in a very fortunate situation where it made sense to take him.

If we didn't have 24th, maybe we would have passed.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

I think it's a great pick at 36 when you've already picked two forwards in a draft. We were in a very fortunate situation where it made sense to take him.

Yeah, there comes a point where you have to take him, don't you? Is that 36? 50? Not sure. But it's hard to argue against the 'value' of the pick when you're talking the best goalie in the draft with a 2nd rd pick - in a draft that wasn't considered all that strong to begin with...

 

[me2]

Yeah, there comes a point where you have to take him, don't you? Is that 36? 50? Not sure. But it's hard to argue against the 'value' of the pick when you're talking the best goalie in the draft with a 2nd rd pick - in a draft that wasn't considered all that strong to begin with...

The first 3 picks were very conservative, solid picks. Not a bad thing.

Tryamkin was a bold reach but we'd chuck away the later pick on Dorsett so.... Forsling is another bright D pick in that late mid range. Imaginative picks.

6th and 7th might as well have just passed.

 

[fancouver]

You know Benning is doing one heck of a job so far when Canuck fans are complaining about the 6th and 7th round picks.

 

[GetFocht]

Draft Rankings Solely on Stats

I'm not sure if many posters here journey their way to "by the numbers" forum but there are some very interesting stats and perspective. I found this thread that shows a list of ranking based solely on stats by a poster whom has dedicated quite a bit of time to this subject.

It turns out Virtanen, Shinkaruk, and Gaunce are quite astute picks. Horvat is a good pick but may have been selected higher than he should have (still think he is an amazing pick)

Check it out: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1697549

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Meh. Doesn't really mean much without knowing the algorithm. And more importantly, how it did in prior drafts.

I'm pretty sure I saw a similar one that had Ehlers as the 2nd best player in the draft after Reinhart, but even I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Tiranis]

It sounds like games played are a big part of it. Also, that 2012 list is pretty abysmal and it's the only one he has done where we at least have some data on how the prospects are turning out.

 

[Chubros]

With all the talk of meat and potatoes, I wonder how Benning's 2014 drafting compares to that of a potato. (or as a substitute, Sham):

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem

Ehlers would have been chosen at 6, I believe. Anyone care to figure out who else the potato would have selected?

 

[Vankiller Whale]

With all the talk of meat and potatoes, I wonder how Benning's 2014 drafting compares to that of a potato. (or as a substitute, Sham):

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem

Ehlers would have been chosen at 6, I believe. Anyone care to figure out who else the potato would have selected?

Very roughly, I think it would be:

6) Nikolaj Ehlers(104 points)
24) Nikolai Goldobin(94 points)
36) Brayden Point(91 points)
66) Nick Magyar(46 points) EDIT: Or Chase De Leo, 81 points if going all the way to 126 instead of 96
126) Daniel Audette(76 points)
156) Matthew Mistele(37 points)
186) Spencer Watson(68 points)

Following the (somewhat dubious) rule included that you only look at the players drafted before your next pick.

 

[Chubros]

Awesome, thanks. We'll see what does better, meat and potatoes, or just a plain potato.

 

[Wilch]

I'm not sure if many posters here journey their way to "by the numbers" forum but there are some very interesting stats and perspective. I found this thread that shows a list of ranking based solely on stats by a poster whom has dedicated quite a bit of time to this subject.

It turns out Virtanen, Shinkaruk, and Gaunce are quite astute picks. Horvat is a good pick but may have been selected higher than he should have (still think he is an amazing pick)

Check it out: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1697549

That list had Gauthier above Lazar and Horvat by a notable margin.

Also has Dumba ahead of Reilly and Maatta; Nick Ebert in round 1.

Doesn't look good to me.

 

[Intangibos]

With all the talk of meat and potatoes, I wonder how Benning's 2014 drafting compares to that of a potato. (or as a substitute, Sham):

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem

Ehlers would have been chosen at 6, I believe. Anyone care to figure out who else the potato would have selected?

Kill me

Imagine if we only changed the picks for picks where one player was the absolute consensus. Like we could add Giroux and Kopitar.

 

[vanuck]

With all the talk of meat and potatoes, I wonder how Benning's 2014 drafting compares to that of a potato. (or as a substitute, Sham):

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/20/we-think-the-vancouver-canucks-may-have-a-scouting-problem

Ehlers would have been chosen at 6, I believe. Anyone care to figure out who else the potato would have selected?

Compare to this which now does it for all 30 teams, with two interesting variations on their criteria to account for actual draft rankings plus age. And apparently they ditched their first method of looking at players selected in real life for this one.

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/26/sham-sharron-takes-over-all-30-draft-tables

Edit: misread. Looks like they got feedback and adjusted accordingly.

 

[Pip]

Hoping for Point

me too man, me too