GDT: 2015 NHL Entry Draft - Part III

[Yossarian54]

Only DropTheSopel and a handful of other posters herd have called the canucks draft good,every "expert" has given it a meh

Compared to 2013 where canucks were deemed draft winners right after by multiple people

Every 'expert' who has written a piece grading teams drafts - although the ones i've seen have been predominantly blogs, if knowledgable ones - has inevitably discussed the Lack trade and lack of a Bieksa trade as the defining factors in the failure of our draft.

As Ryan Lambert gave his reason for the fail grade: "Just rebuild already".

That's a separate issue to the picks themselves. I quite like our picks, I would even call them good.

Further to that, remember 2013 was a draft in which we had two 1st rounders, including a top-10 pick. Pretty hard to stuff that up.

 

[nuckfan insk]

After having a day or two and a horrible hangover to think about this draft I quite like it.

Liked:
-Boeser
-Jasek
-McNally trade (getting something)

Meh/don't know enough to have an opinion:
-Brisebois
-Zhukenov
-Gaudette
-Olsen
-Neill

Disliked:
-Lack trade
-No Bieksa trade

I said before the draft in the Benning/management thread that Benning's words don't match his actions. He talks about meat and potatoes and scrums and then goes and gets Baertschi and Clendening. I think this draft reflects it, weird discouraging signs pre-draft in the videos released, then go for skill picks and Russians as well as 'real good' Canadian boys.

I also love the not-serious theory that that photo of Benning looking shocked is when he saw who Boston was going to draft. Bravo to whoever came up with that.

This sums up how I feel entirely, except I'd have like to get pilon

 

[Yossarian54]

This sums up how I feel entirely, except I'd have like to get pilon

Sure, me too. But I hate to criticise when there's a guy who multiple teams have passed on in multiple rounds. When a guy falls ~100 spots something has gone on.

 

[CanaFan]

Only DropTheSopel and a handful of other posters herd have called the canucks draft good,every "expert" has given it a meh

Compared to 2013 where canucks were deemed draft winners right after by multiple people

Re-read the criticisms a little more closely, you'll find the nuance.

 

[PhilMick]

Sure, me too. But I hate to criticise when there's a guy who multiple teams have passed on in multiple rounds. When a guy falls ~100 spots something has gone on.

Pretty good/damning analysis of him in the DraftBuzz draft guide. Don't have it handy but if I recall correctly the gist was he was an early developer/outlier and was very promising, but hasn't shown any signs of improvement in like 3 years.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

2. Vancouver Canucks

With the improvements that the Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers are making, the Vancouver Canucks needed to keep pace, and General Manager Jim Benning had a relatively weak draft. In addition, the team traded away Eddie Lack, failed to land assets this year for players who may have been available, and then passed on critically important picks. Brock Boeser is an intriguing prospect thanks to his ability to score, but has some question marks beyond that, and the rest of their draft seemed lackluster.

Dmitry Zhukenov is an unknown boom-or-bust prospect, and Vancouver fans do seem to be generally pleased with Carl Neill, who does have some room for improvement. The Canucks opted for Adam Gaudette, who has a limited ceiling, and Lukas Jasek, who hasn’t been able to put everything together yet. Overall, with prospects like Travis Konecny, Oliver Kylington, and Nikita Korostelev available with their picks, it was disappointing that the team opted for safer picks rather than home-runs.

The Canucks face a situation where the Sedin twins and other talents are aging, except the big problem is the team doesn’t appear to have replacements ready to fill their spots in-house. It’s a problem that stems from weak drafts spent on questionable talents, this one included.

Don't agree with much of this at all.

The Lack deal was somewhat disappointing but a high 3rd usually isn't a huge drop in value over a mid-late 2nd at that stage of the draft and I think we ended up with a similar quality of player at 66 as we would have had around 45.
Getting a second for Bieksa this year would have been nice but in the long run,a second next year could be better as it's rumoured to be a deeper draft.

I really like the Boeser pick,he has the upside of being an impact first line player and could likely reach that but he could still be a very useful bottom sixer if he doesn't hit his ceiling.That's critical when having only one pick in the first two rounds.

Opting for Kylington would be really reckless in our situation.Hockey sense isn't something you can teach or develop and if his is as lacking as many experts think,well you just spent your only top 60 pick on a small,non-physical Luca Sbisa with nice skating.Most likely,he'll be back in Europe asap.

Konecny I liked but we already have several projected top 6 smallish,non physical offensive forwards like Shinkaruk,Baertchi,and McCann in the pipeline and we need to add more size to the mix.Much like Shinkaruk,TK is a good player that I would have gladly taken if we had another first but not with our only first.

Regarding Nikita Korostelev,I can't see a guy with zero interest in the defensive zone ever becoming an NHLer in this day and age.I'll take Lukas Jasek over him every time.

The writer never mentions Guillaume Brisebois who I think was a very good pick in the third with the return from Lack.He has NHL size,good skating and defensive smarts along with PP skills and a team captain at 17.Nice pick.

Zhukenov is an unknown,for sure,but there's real upside there and he's a real interesting prospect.I think he likely would still have been available later in the draft so hopefully we didn't miss out on someone much better with that pick.
Good that he's coming here next season to learn the North American game and we'll get a better read on his game at that time.

Adam Gaudette I'm fine with,Gaudette sounds quite a bit like Alex Friesen so if he ends up like that then it's good value for a late pick.

Neill sounds like he has a good set of tools but has to put them all together still.This is a real red flag but probably worth taking a flyer on in the fifth round if he can.

Olsen I like for a 7th.Could be a really good bottom pairing defenceman who could move up in pairings if necessary without looking out of place.Look forward to seeing him play vs the Royals next season.

All in all,a good mix of players but with limited high picks,it makes more sense to play it safe early on and get well rounded players that have better odds of becoming NHLers and then take a few home run swings later on.I think that's pretty much what Benning and company did and I'd say it's a job well done.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So what pick do you think was a mistake? None of them stand out as poor picks. This is pretty obvious, as the inherently unhappy, angry posters are being very quiet about his picks. That silence tells you all you need to know.

From whom? Anyone that knows a lick about the draft. Benning has absolutely earned the benefit of the doubt, as if he didn't already, running terrific drafts for the Sabres for over a half dozen years.

How can you say Benning has earned the benefit of the doubt from _everyone_ with absolute certainty?

I would have gone with Novak in the 2nd and Carrier in the 3rd. Both were early 2nd round talents in my estimation.

About the silence regarding the picks: Really, why the spin? The absence of negativity does not constitute positivity. How about we not infer it being that until it is that...? (The spin here is not helping your argument, IMO. And backing Boeser is a really easy position to maintain here.)

if i wanted to find criticism of benning's draft it's that he could have gotten pretty awesome value by following toronto's lead and trading down. 23 could have become merkley and bracco or something. maybe you like boeser a lot, but do you really like boeser more than whomever you get at 30 + another pick?

it's whatever. they clearly saw what button sees in him. i dont think i see that, but at least they went with the goal-scoring physical player rather than the bruiser hitmachine that can score goals too

Dubas killed it at the draft from a value standpoint. However, I think what he did is reflected in what Benning intended to do had Boeser not been there at #23. They both had the same plan, ostensibly: Trade down when there is a perceived drop off in talent. Question is: Did that drop off exist?

Boeser wasn't my top choice, but I can see why he would be that at that position. Very balanced asset, while the alternatives in Konecny and Merkley could be seen as less balanced, but with higher upside. So perhaps he wanted to trade down after the best balanced asset was chosen?

Bottom line, I don't see what Button sees either, but I can understand why Benning saw Boeser at a different level than the remaining options.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

I don't think Toronto "killed it" at the draft like a lot of people are saying. Their team going forward has a lot of skill, yes, but they're going to be soft. Real soft. I kind of like what Benning is doing with our group. Tenacious, strong, fast and heavy shots. Kings style.

 

[arttk]

How can you say Benning has earned the benefit of the doubt from _everyone_ with absolute certainty?

I would have gone with Novak in the 2nd and Carrier in the 3rd. Both were early 2nd round talents in my estimation.

About the silence regarding the picks: Really, why the spin? The absence of negativity does not constitute positivity. How about we not infer it being that until it is that...? (The spin here is not helping your argument, IMO. And backing Boeser is a really easy position to maintain here.)





Dubas killed it at the draft from a value standpoint. However, I think what he did is reflected in what Benning intended to do had Boeser not been there at #23. They both had the same plan, ostensibly: Trade down when there is a perceived drop off in talent. Question is: Did that drop off exist?

Boeser wasn't my top choice, but I can see why he would be that at that position. Very balanced asset, while the alternatives in Konecny and Merkley could be seen as less balanced, but with higher upside. So perhaps he wanted to trade down after the best balanced asset was chosen?

Bottom line, I don't see what Button sees either, but I can understand why Benning saw Boeser at a different level than the remaining options.

Yeah I don't see the rush to claim the draft was a success. It'll take 2-4 years for us to know.

 

[arsmaster*]

Yeah I don't see the rush to claim the draft was a success. It'll take 2-4 years for us to know.

The rush is to absolve Benning of any poor decision he's made here.

It's a fanboy view imo.

I'm not sure how anyone can sit here and claim the draft a "big win" when the two wild cards not one poster on this forum has any insight on. They're basically just projecting best case scenarios across the board (like they've never seen a Canucks draft class before).

Neill is a 2nd time eligible.

I like brisebois and boeser but there is way too Much pro benning agenda in the analysis here.

I didn't mind the direction and the idea of targeting skill traits but I've been to this rodeo before. 2009 and 2011 looked great the day after too.

Like bleach said, there were other players I'd have taken over the first 3 or 4 selections. I'd probably grade the draft a b- which is better than the C grade 2014 draft.

Gotta hope for some palat and johnsons. Getting 2 NHL players out of thus draft would be great. 3-4 is pie in the sky.

The Canucks staff hasn't done that in 10 years.

 

[arttk]

The rush is to absolve Benning of any poor decision he's made here.

It's a fanboy view imo.

I'm not sure how anyone can sit here and claim the draft a "big win" when the two wild cards not one poster on this forum has any insight on. They're basically just projecting best case scenarios across the board (like they've never seen a Canucks draft class before).

Neill is a 2nd time eligible.

I like brisebois and boeser but there is way too Much pro benning agenda in the analysis here.

I didn't mind the direction and the idea of targeting skill traits but I've been to this rodeo before. 2009 and 2011 looked great the day after too.

Like bleach said, there were other players I'd have taken over the first 3 or 4 selections. I'd probably grade the draft a b- which is better than the C grade 2014 draft.

Gotta hope for some palat and johnsons. Getting 2 NHL players out of thus draft would be great. 3-4 is pie in the sky.

The Canucks staff hasn't done that in 10 years.

There are more boom/bust picks this year in Zhukenov and Jasek but I think that is the biggest difference compared to the last couple of years. I am pretty sure like most drafts, we'll be crossing names off half way through their draft+1 season.

Looking back, we were so psyched about Hodgson,Schroeder and Rodin. Funny thing is that we all thought Jensen would make it and it seems like Grenier and Hutton will make it instead. We all thought Hunter would be with us by now but then a big injury derailed that. Really shows you how uncertain things are when it comes to prospects.