biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,795
- 10,842
Well...
It's sporstnet. So obviously they're also going to spend plenty of time talking about whoever the Leafs pick, and whatever else they do, or even might do even.
Pre-Game Talk: 2015 NHL Entry Draft - Part VI
- Thread starter The Stig
- Start date
- Status
Well...
It's sporstnet. So obviously they're also going to spend plenty of time talking about whoever the Leafs pick, and whatever else they do, or even might do even.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,795
- 10,842
I wish.
Although, if one were to happen to find a stream...the fact it'll inevitably be badly delayed, might kind of offset Bob and Co. constantly tipping picks so it all arrives right on time.
Canadian Canuck
Hughes4Calder
It would be about 2 hours to get through the first 5 picks....thank god there is atleast a time limit for picks so we dont have to listen to 10 different analysts tell us the same things over and over about Mcdavid
Not disagreeing with your argument - Benning has a definite type or method, which seems to hold true for the duration of the draft, and the poster MS has outlined what those priorities are. I would only add that JB also favors shooters. The apparent indifference to ice Q is the most distressing part.
That said, based on this decade long study: value-in-acquiring-draft-picks people calling the latter picks "throw away/mean nothing" are perfectly justified to do so. I tallied up the numbers they provided and it turns out rounds 4-7, taken individually, produce about the same number of NHLers, year after year, as the undrafted free agent market. In our case, the FA market (8th round if you like) with Lack, Tanev and Kenins outperforms each of our rounds except the 1st. Point being, rounds 1-3 is the draft. Everything else is literally a league wide exercise in securing rights to "mean nothings," or the 3-5% if you must put a number on it.
Now, much like everybody here, I think the strategy of selecting bottom 6 / 2 from junior clubs and fancying they have a better chance of making it than their peers who see more ice and have better numbers is probably a hallmark of insanity... but it's not a tragedy, not yet proven anyway. So long as Benning is pumping out two or more NHLers every three years from rounds 1-8 (the last round being apparently our 2nd most important
), and a reasonable number of them go on to become top 6/4, then I don't much care if he formally earmarks rounds 6 and 7 as his "character" slots. Making it more difficult for himself, sure, but the numerical value of those picks is almost insignificant in comparison to getting it right more often than not with that 1st. His career as a GM in Vancouver will be dictated by that round, not what doesn't happen, irrespective of strategy used, in rounds 6-7.Well assuming the Nucks will draft where they are, (I hope they try to move up though, as I think it would not be good if they stayed where they are), they could really draft any position, maybe not goalie though, even though the goalie talent is pretty good, there has been some talk of Carlo going there, I would be on board for that.
I'd rather not take Carlo. Not that he doesn't have value and certainly offers a nice "floor" for a late-first pick. But I think the "type" of player he projects to be - a hard-minute shut down defender - isn't the type we need urgently. This team urgently needs to upgrade their speed, skill, and transition ability from the back end. And this is a need today as much as 5 years from now. I don't think we can prioritize a Willie Mitchell type at the moment. If we go D, I hope we focus on offensive transition ability as much or more than defensive zone ability. The latter can be developed and polished to a large degree with experience and NHL coaching. The former cannot. It needs to be in the player's skill set already at 17 or it is unlikely to ever be there. That is why I'd also prefer Roy, Chabot, or Dunn to Carlo and even Zboril. It could be argued who is the true "BPA" but I think you have to factor in the value that each "style" of player brings to the table.
Virtanen2Horvat
BoHorvat53
^ Yeah well that would be nice, but I'm not sure any of those players except for Carlo will be available at 23, well Dunn might, but he's a 2rd pick, Larsson would be the kind of guy you are looking for in R1.
Last edited:
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,055
- 6,624
Hmmm... I think 'value' should dictate 'strategy'. They are linked, IMO.
If Virtanen is proving to be too much a 'lightning rod', associate tools to Tryamkin vs production for Valiev. Same draft, same position, both picked in the 3rd round in 2014. Here, tools vs. production is the choice. Either side can be reasoned. Then introduce 'try hard' Alex Peters, going a few picks down. Who was the right choice? Too soon to tell, but prioritizing a different trait yields a different player. Yet none of these resulted in a choice that is "worlds apart" from the other.
To your example above, I think targeting "tools" can be argued to be a bad strategy as well. As can solely targeting production. It's just that targeting production in the depth rounds, more often than not, is proven to be the smarter way to go. History/Precedent. Benning needs to wake up to that fact, somehow.
Not disagreeing with your argument - Benning has a definite type or method, which seems to hold true for the duration of the draft, and the poster MS has outlined what those priorities are. I would only add that JB also favors shooters. The apparent indifference to ice Q is the most distressing part.
That said, based on this decade long study: value-in-acquiring-draft-picks people calling the latter picks "throw away/mean nothing" are perfectly justified to do so. I tallied up the numbers they provided and it turns out rounds 4-7, taken individually, produce about the same number of NHLers, year after year, as the undrafted free agent market. In our case, the FA market (8th round if you like) with Lack, Tanev and Kenins outperforms each of our rounds except the 1st. Point being, rounds 1-3 is the draft. Everything else is literally a league wide exercise in securing rights to "mean nothings," or the 3-5% if you must put a number on it.
Now, much like everybody here, I think the strategy of selecting bottom 6 / 2 from junior clubs and fancying they have a better chance of making it than their peers who see more ice and have better numbers is probably a hallmark of insanity... but it's not a tragedy, not yet proven anyway. So long as Benning is pumping out two or more NHLers every three years from rounds 1-8 (the last round being apparently our 2nd most important
Well aware of the numerical value of the depth picks, but without the right methodology, Benning is turning a slim chance into a zero chance. It's as you said, he's making it harder on himself. That's all I'm saying as well. If he chooses to target 'try/character' above all else and produces NHLers at the rate mentioned, great. But really, you have to do the right thing before you can expect the right result. Benning just... isn't doing that thing/or hasn't shown to be doing it.
The Stig
Your hero.
- Status
