Pre-Game Talk: 2015 NHL Entry Draft - Part VI

[arsmaster*]

Yeah. No doubt. Bleach Clean. Looks like you've got a bunch of posts to move to the gripe thread.

 

[a Fool]

Can't someone just get a really really good photoshop/editing person to make that picture of the Canucks draft list visible... Really want to know.

I tried. What Zombo posted was as good as it gets.

 

[Dissonance]

Yeah, you'll hear scouts in pretty much every organization rave about "character" to the media. It's pretty much a universal platitude. Here's Tyler Wright of the Detroit Red Wings before the 2014 draft:

“We’ve just got to get good players,” Wright said. “We want passionate, hard-working players who won’t stop at anything to get into the NHL. The two big things for me are players with passion and character.”

Difference, of course, is in the track record. Detroit has a habit of identifying high-IQ, talented players later on in the draft that other teams have overlooked because of various perceived warts. Vancouver... not so much. Our OHL scouts have been decent at it lately (Subban, Cassels). Gradin can very occasionally do it. Not clear anyone else can. And Weisbrod's track record looks dismal. I guess the hope is that Benning will apply some sort of magic touch and fix it all... I'm skeptical, but we'll see.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

I think really we don't have enough to go on to understand if there is a particular trend or bias in the decisions that JB et. al. make WRT player evaluation. When I look at the acquisitions that have been made it seems like a total mixed bag of strengths. I see just as many examples of skill or IQ being emphasized as size or character. These are all tiny little snippets of information, and any management group that is worth their salt would be loath to share everything with the public. What stuck out to me from the video was Crawford's comment about the wingers and defenders. You can certainly choose to look at Benning's comment about Burrows as a concern or Weisbrod's discussion of how they want to look at the ranking process, but that meeting was certainly far longer than 2 minutes and it seems self-destructive to be anything less than neutral heading into tomorrow's draft. To cap it off, we won't know if any of these guys pan out for several years, so even if we do or do not like the moves that are made, it doesn't really mean anything. The players that any of us like could turn out to be a "wow I can't believe how poorly they did" or certainly a "yea we totally should have picked X I called it". Certainly though, with another crop of players it will be easier to understand if there are any specific traits that JB and co. value higher than others.

 

[CanaFan]

Dorsett is a prime example of this thinking. His example is supposed to help being everyone to his level.

@canafan

Benning didn't call out virtanen. He called out ALL junior players.

Ya I agree but my point was only that Jake clearly wasn't an exception to that rule, in other words he wasn't drafted for "character/hard work". Benning does seem to prioritize "skills" - skating and shooting seem to be at the top - over "cerebral" players. I guess I just don't see much of the "character" element dominating his picks and trades yet.

[

Also, listen to him explain I Gillman why he likes McCann. "Honest player". "Meat and potatoes". That speaks to valuing "character" over "the non meaty euro's" (Goldobin, scherbak, and Pastrnak).

This is why I question the "honesty" of these videos. I mean, do you really think Benning views McCann as a "meat & potatoes" or "high character" player? That sounds right for Conner Bleackley or John Quenneville, but McCann plays a much more "opportunistic" game than what those terms describe. As many here have pointed out, McCann doesn't even really like to cycle or engage along the boards for the puck. His words don't match the player he chose. I just don't see the focus on character and hard work in his picks that the video and his comments imply. I tend to think it is more of a PR spin than anything at this point.

 

[arsmaster*]

To bring up sbisa again. We all thought what we heard about acquiring him was lip service and PR spin. We extended him in an outrageously unnecessary fashion prior to the playoffs after a poor season based on eye/traditional/advanced metrics, coupled with a raise when he had leverage to lower the salary.

I don't think benning is a bull ****ter. He calls it like he sees it.

 

[CanaFan]

To bring up sbisa again. We all thought what we heard about acquiring him was lip service and PR spin. We extended him in an outrageously unnecessary fashion prior to the playoffs after a poor season based on eye/traditional/advanced metrics, coupled with a raise when he had leverage to lower the salary.

I don't think benning is a bull ****ter. He calls it like he sees it.

Ya Sbisa is the one ... oddity ... that he has been consistent on. Still don't think he has drafted or traded for M&P players nearly as much as he is purported to.

Guess we'll all have a better idea tomorrow and Saturday. If we walk away with Carlo and/or Bittner then ya, I'll concede there is a trend in his drafting.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Bad form jumping into you and DTS's discussion but I wanted to suggest that it seems a bit ... sloppy ... to lump anything that is not production-based under "NPBT". "Character" is as different from "Skills" as the latter is from "Production". Virtanen indexed highest on tools, but was not wholly deficient in production either - his 35 ES goals were tops in the entire draft IIRC. So I disagree with trying to position Virtanen as a "Non-production" and therefore a "Character" or "Intangibles" pick. The basis for drafting Virtanen was not the same as the basis for drafting Pettit or Stewart. Totally night and day.

The point is that production 'should top' any other trait in the depth rounds. I don't lump those other traits together under an umbrella to be dismissive of them. I do it because it doesn't matter what they may be, they should rank behind production. It's going to tell you where to pick first. Not character or intangibles first.

Virtanen is positioned a "non-production" pick. Whether the highest priority was tools/character/intangibles is anyone's guess. The key point is that it wasn't production. (His closest ranked peers outpaced him). It doesn't make it a bad pick. It just means that Benning is willing to bank on non-production based traits - even that high in the draft. (His approach is different)

 

[CanaFan]

The point is that production 'should top' any other trait in the depth rounds. I don't lump those other traits together under an umbrella to be dismissive of them. I do it because it doesn't matter what they may be, they should rank behind production. It's going to tell you where to pick first. Not character or intangibles first.

Virtanen is positioned a "non-production" pick. Whether the highest priority was tools/character/intangibles is anyone's guess. The key point is that it wasn't production. (His closest ranked peers outpaced him). It doesn't make it a bad pick. It just means that Benning is willing to bank on non-production based traits - even that high in the draft. (His approach is different)

I think you have to be careful when dissecting these points. Production is one thing but not the be all, end all. I know you know this from your posts in the Horvat vs threads. Junior Production is a correlary of NHL production but it is still fairly 'loose', otherwise how is Horvat a 9th pick and Petan a mid-second rounder?

Next to production is "tools" - observable skills and traits. Skating, hands, passing, etc. This is entirely distinct from things like character, hard work, team first attitude, etc. They don't deserve to be talked about as a "non" anything, they are all noteworthy enough to discuss as distinct pieces.

The "fear" that is being propagated by the video is not related to Benning's apparent focus on "tools" or at least that's not how I see it. Stewart wasn't a guy with high end tools and low end production, he is low on both counts (but high in "wanting it real bad"). That is a legit concern if Benning and co think that "wanting it real bad" can overcome mediocre skating, hands, or just plain hockey instincts. But I see that quite apart from how he has drafted in the early rounds (1 to 5) so far. The focus on "character" is not apparent in any of Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin, or Forsling. You can say it is a blanket focus on "non production" factors but that's like describing an elephant as a non-cat. It isn't an instructive analysis. It also isn't rare or unusual amongst NHL teams to base selections on more than junior production, as a review of any historical draft will show (and our very own Bo Horvat is the embodiment of).

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

No doubt in my mind that Burrows was just ONE of dozens/hundreds of player references that they've been throwing around over the course of discussions.

It's all just pandering to the everyday fans i.e. "oh look Benning loves Burrows yay"

 

[Verviticus]

Ya I agree but my point was only that Jake clearly wasn't an exception to that rule, in other words he wasn't drafted for "character/hard work". Benning does seem to prioritize "skills" - skating and shooting seem to be at the top - over "cerebral" players. I guess I just don't see much of the "character" element dominating his picks and trades yet.

[

This is why I question the "honesty" of these videos. I mean, do you really think Benning views McCann as a "meat & potatoes" or "high character" player? That sounds right for Conner Bleackley or John Quenneville, but McCann plays a much more "opportunistic" game than what those terms describe. As many here have pointed out, McCann doesn't even really like to cycle or engage along the boards for the puck. His words don't match the player he chose. I just don't see the focus on character and hard work in his picks that the video and his comments imply. I tend to think it is more of a PR spin than anything at this point.

maybe, but im not willing to give a dinosaur like him the benefit of the doubt there.

 

[arsmaster*]

You can point to Horvat and I'll point to the guy credited for his development and the example for him.

 

[me2]

I think you have to be careful when dissecting these points. Production is one thing but not the be all, end all. I know you know this from your posts in the Horvat vs threads. Junior Production is a correlary of NHL production but it is still fairly 'loose', otherwise how is Horvat a 9th pick and Petan a mid-second rounder?

Next to production is "tools" - observable skills and traits. Skating, hands, passing, etc. This is entirely distinct from things like character, hard work, team first attitude, etc. They don't deserve to be talked about as a "non" anything, they are all noteworthy enough to discuss as distinct pieces.

The "fear" that is being propagated by the video is not related to Benning's apparent focus on "tools" or at least that's not how I see it. Stewart wasn't a guy with high end tools and low end production, he is low on both counts (but high in "wanting it real bad"). That is a legit concern if Benning and co think that "wanting it real bad" can overcome mediocre skating, hands, or just plain hockey instincts. But I see that quite apart from how he has drafted in the early rounds (1 to 5) so far. The focus on "character" is not apparent in any of Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin, or Forsling. You can say it is a blanket focus on "non production" factors but that's like describing an elephant as a non-cat. It isn't an instructive analysis. It also isn't rare or unusual amongst NHL teams to base selections on more than junior production, as a review of any historical draft will show (and our very own Bo Horvat is the embodiment of).

This is Benning's first draft in charge of scouting so we will get a better idea than last year under which the scouting and intelligence work done and controlled compiled under the previous regime.

 

[CanaFan]

You can point to Horvat and I'll point to the guy credited for his development and the example for him.

I don't follow? I only use Horvat as an example of a player where "tools" were given greater consideration than "production". Jake is nothing like Horvat, but he is similarly a case of Benning seeing the tools more than the numbers.

"Character" and "hard work" - the fear that is coming out of this video - had very little to do with the selection of Jake over Ehlers or Nylander.

 

[CanaFan]

This is Benning's first draft in charge of scouting so we will get a better idea than last year under which the scouting and intelligence work done and controlled compiled under the previous regime.

I agree. To see a slope (direction) you need at least two data points. I have trouble seeing any patterns in 2014 alone.

 

[me2]

I agree. To see a slope (direction) you need at least two data points. I have trouble seeing any patterns in 2014 alone.

There are only 2 data points that really stand out to me (6th overall, who knows) those are Tryamkin and Stewart. Tryamkin Gillis avoided Russians due to KHL risks, though with the KHL collapsing that might have been reassessed. Stewart - a goon, not something we are used to seeing. Petit just looks like something Delorme would have loved.

 

[CanaFan]

There are only 2 data points that really stand out to me (6th overall, who knows) those are Tryamkin and Stewart. Tryamkin Gillis avoided Russians due to KHL risks, though with the KHL collapsing that might have been reassessed. Stewart - a goon, not something we are used to seeing. Petit just looks like something Delorme would have loved.

Ya there's a lot of "variety" in Benning's first draft and trades:

Focus on tools:
Virtanen
McCann
Tryamkin
Pedan
Forsling (?)

Focus on production:
Vey
Baertschi
Clendening
Demko (?)

Focus on character:
Stewart
Pettit
Sauntner (?)


There's some mis-reads in there no doubt (Vey, maybe Clendening) but I don't see just one type of player in that mix.

 

[jigsaw99]

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think you have to be careful when dissecting these points. Production is one thing but not the be all, end all. I know you know this from your posts in the Horvat vs threads. Junior Production is a correlary of NHL production but it is still fairly 'loose', otherwise how is Horvat a 9th pick and Petan a mid-second rounder?

CanaFan, I fear you have reflexed into a defensive posture (re: Virtanen), ready to re-hash old tools vs. production arguments, when in fact that is not the argument being put forth.

This is about recalibrating towards production in the depth rounds. Teams tend to get more value thinking this way (see DET, MTL and TBay).

In other words, this is not a general tools vs. production argument across the board. This is about the best way to get value from the depth rounds - where production is the best thing a scout can bank on when he has to choose amongst more flawed prospects.

Virtanen is there simply as a reminder that Benning can devalue production at any point. He prioritized tools here. Where later, they could prioritize character. Both methods take the focus away from production, in the end.

Next to production is "tools" - observable skills and traits. Skating, hands, passing, etc. This is entirely distinct from things like character, hard work, team first attitude, etc. They don't deserve to be talked about as a "non" anything, they are all noteworthy enough to discuss as distinct pieces.

Noteworthy, Yes. First in priority amongst depth picks? No. It's all about order of priority. Not that a thing is worth/not worth talking about/considering.

The "fear" that is being propagated by the video is not related to Benning's apparent focus on "tools" or at least that's not how I see it. Stewart wasn't a guy with high end tools and low end production, he is low on both counts (but high in "wanting it real bad"). That is a legit concern if Benning and co think that "wanting it real bad" can overcome mediocre skating, hands, or just plain hockey instincts.

That's just it: Did he prioritize character above tools and production in that case? Most think he did because there's very little else that stands out.

But I see that quite apart from how he has drafted in the early rounds (1 to 5) so far. The focus on "character" is not apparent in any of Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin, or Forsling. You can say it is a blanket focus on "non production" factors but that's like describing an elephant as a non-cat. It isn't an instructive analysis. It also isn't rare or unusual amongst NHL teams to base selections on more than junior production, as a review of any historical draft will show (and our very own Bo Horvat is the embodiment of).

Instructive analysis? Nothing more needs to be said beyond devaluing production to make a pick. It's an observation. Will those players still turn out well? Don't know, but it's clear that production was not a priority when picking them.

Bo Horvat, as you know, had great production in his last 60 games. Not quite the same thing. But that's besides the point. The point is that Benning will pick tools high, and Benning will potentially pick character in the mid to late rounds (video), but when is production prioritized? That's what people want to know - and that's what they will find out tomorrow.

 

[CanaFan]

CanaFan, I fear you have reflexed into a defensive posture (re: Virtanen), ready to re-hash old tools vs. production arguments, when in fact that is not the argument being put forth.

This is about recalibrating towards production in the depth rounds. Teams tend to get more value thinking this way (see DET, MTL and TBay).

In other words, this is not a general tools vs. production argument across the board. This is about the best way to get value from the depth rounds - where production is the best thing a scout can bank on when he has to choose amongst more flawed prospects.

Virtanen is there simply as a reminder that Benning can devalue production at any point. He prioritized tools here. Where later, they could prioritize character. Both methods take the focus away from production, in the end.





Noteworthy, Yes. First in priority amongst depth picks? No. It's all about order of priority. Not that a thing is worth/not worth talking about/considering.





That's just it: Did he prioritize character above tools and production in that case? Most think he did because there's very little else that stands out.





Instructive analysis? Nothing more needs to be said beyond devaluing production to make a pick. It's an observation. Will those players still turn out well? Don't know, but it's clear that production was not a priority when picking them.

Bo Horvat, as you know, had great production in his last 60 games. Not quite the same thing. But that's besides the point. The point is that Benning will pick tools high, and Benning will potentially pick character in the mid to late rounds (video), but when is production prioritized? That's what people want to know - and that's what they will find out tomorrow.

I agree with a lot more of your argument here, largely because of the distinction you've made between early picks and later picks. In the later rounds - based on what we've seen in 2014 - I agree the prioritization appears poor. No argument at all on that point. I simply don't think Virtanen (or McCann) need to be - or even should be - part of this argument. Stewart and Pettit are evidence enough.

 

[biturbo19]

The thing that probably still needs to be said, is that whatever the extent of the whole "intangibles" and "attitude" type emphasis in the later rounds, the penchant for taking "bottom of roster Amateurs" and projecting them as "bottom of roster Pros", and to whatever degree that appears to be frustratingly reaffirmed by what Weisbrod was saying there...This clearly isn't a new phenomenon or approach exclusive to the last year or two. This team has been displaying this type of futile "philosophy" with late round picks going back a very long time now.

It's extremely frustrating to be sure, and it certainly seems relevant fodder for this thread in the discussion of what that might mean with regard to our later round picks this weekend. But to twist it into yet another anti-Benning tangent, drag the Pro Scouting (an entirely different department of the organization) evaluations on guys like Sbisa or hypothetically Lucic into it...doesn't really seem necessary, or even accurate here.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree with a lot more of your argument here, largely because of the distinction you've made between early picks and later picks. In the later rounds - based on what we've seen in 2014 - I agree the prioritization appears poor. No argument at all on that point. I simply don't think Virtanen (or McCann) need to be - or even should be - part of this argument. Stewart and Pettit are evidence enough.

Apparently, Stewart and Pettit are not evidence enough because some are choosing to treat them as 'throw away/mean nothing' picks. Not indicative of anything. That's why I included Virtanen. He was meant to show that a 'mean something' pick still didn't have production as a priority requirement. That in order of priority, production didn't top the list. That's all. This is not to disparage Virtanen, but rather to show method.

 

[CanaFan]

Apparently, Stewart and Pettit are not evidence enough because some are choosing to treat them as 'throw away/mean nothing' picks. Not indicative of anything. That's why I included Virtanen. He was meant to show that a 'mean something' pick still didn't have production as a priority requirement. That in order of priority, production didn't top the list. That's all. This is not to disparage Virtanen, but rather to show method.

Well the argument about the "value" of late round picks is its own. One should evaluate value separate from strategy.

I also think that while both Virtanen and Stewart are "non production" picks, there is still a world of difference between prioritizing tools (I think it can be argued is a sound strategy) and prioritizing "try" (Can be argued is a poor strategy).

But I understand the overall point you are trying to make about late round selections, so I'll bow out and let you and DTS continue as you were.

 

[Bad News Benning]

I really hope the draft coverage doesn't spend the entire 1st round talking about mcdavid/eichel. You've spent the last year talking about them...I think that's enough. There are 28 other players and teams to talk about. If you want a fun drinking game...take a drink every time McDavid or Eichel are mentioned.

 

[Yossarian54]

I really hope the draft coverage doesn't spend the entire 1st round talking about mcdavid/eichel. You've spent the last year talking about them...I think that's enough. There are 28 other players and teams to talk about. If you want a fun drinking game...take a drink every time McDavid or Eichel are mentioned.

Yeah sure, if throwing up on yourself within the hour is fun.