2016 Draft Thread | 8

[Rotting Corpse*]

Well you'd have to put the D from the same 4 to 8 range over those drafts to arrive at any sort of conclusion. All that list shows is that prospects bust fairly often, not that forwards are any more or less "safe" than D.

Well, yeah. I did that, I just didn't post it. Hence the "cursory look" comment.

Mind you if my cursory result had been myth: confirmed I probably would have posted it.

 

[biturbo19]

This is true but I think the issue is with the "variability" around which defensemen become those top end guys and which don't. If you look qualitatively around the league, I think you'd find that a greater proportion of top line forwards - the kind that can score 60+ points with regularity overwhelmingly were drafted in the top 5 or 10 of the draft. And if you looked at the D that you consider "top 2" (whether by role, TOI, offensive production, etc) I believe you'd see a greater proportion that were drafted outside the top 5 and top 10.

I think it's the nature of the positions whereby forwards with elite offensive skills are easily identified at 17/18 but defensemen - outside of the rare "true #1D a la Ekblad, Doughty, etc - don't reveal their NHL upside until much later. Hence the argument for "drafting D sooner because they take longer to develop" actually supports also drafting them later due to the opportunity cost involved in passing on a potential top F (hard to find past 10) for a potential top D (relatively easier to find later).

Now I concede I don't have the numbers at hand to back this but if anyone wanted to take the time to do so I suspect it would bear this out.

There's certainly something to be said for that variance. It really is hard to ignore that top scoring forwards tend to come from the first round, particularly those Top-5/10 picks. And there are plenty of examples of Top-pairing defencemen coming from other places on the other end of that.

There's a very good chance however, that whoever we get at #5 isn't going to be a real "franchise player". As illlustrated in the list MS posted, 5th pick forwards are far from a guaranteed star. You hope your pick flourishes and blows expectations out of the water, but pragmatically speaking based on the history...you're more likely talking about a Voracek, Wheeler, etc level player, as a realistic "upside" expectation. You're doing very well if you can get that (though those two examples ironically, never really contributed to their full potential for their drafting teams). Great players, top-line players...but not "face of the franchise" types. Anything short of that type of real homerun hit...and you're probably talking about more of a good Top-6 forward (more of a B.Schenn, Brassard, Ladd type - again, very nice pieces to have, but none of whom realized full potential with their drafting team).

At which point, a puck-moving Top-3D is very comparable, or even favourable in "upside" to a Top-6F for me. Especially in terms of how impossible it is becoming to acquire a young Top-3 defenceman in today's NHL. Teams just don't trade them - unless we're talking a Johansen-Jones swap for a bonafide young #1C, or a messy contract situation like Hamilton (still swapped for a strong 1st [projected Top-6F like Connor, Barzal, etc.] and a pair of 2nds in a deep draft and a $6M contract). Other than that...how many other quality young Top-3D even change hands? They're just not available.

Which is where for me, the draft and "BPA" is really more about "MVP" - Most Valuable Piece. Looking at a realistic range of expected outcomes for a prospect, and which prospect holds value most through that range of realistic expected outcomes. And how hard or costly it is to acquire that type of player elsewise.

I think you also have to look at how teams are constructed these days in the draft-heavy cap era. Top-line and top-pairing mean a lot less these days than "duos" and the type of minutes. Which is where the "upside" of a player like Juolevi kind of surges. Good, well built teams don't just throw their 2 best defencemen together by default, or their 3 best forwards on a single "top line". Calling someone like Juolevi a "Top-3D" upside is essentially saying...he's a guy who is either the sidekick on an all-world calibre pairing beside a true #1D, part of a tag-team top-pairing with a pair of #2s, or an absolute anchor of a very good 2nd pairing that plays substantial defensive minutes.

I mean, just look at the sort of partners most #1D types play with most - It's a lot of guys who would otherwise be more like a #4 maybe even a #5 in a vacuum. McNabb/Muzzin, Methot, Spurgeon, old Campbell, old Markov, old Martin, etc., even Stralman, Bouwmeester are more like "#3" types in the classic sense. This is where depth and diversification is so important - and where that "true #1D" is so rare and important, in that they can carry a #4 type to lofty heights. And also where a guy like Juolevi projects can have huge "upside" - and a ton of qualities that make him a "safe" bet to become a Top-3D of some sort, whether he's on your "top pairing" or you get more out of a player like that anchoring a "second pairing". Basically...i think the #2/3 distinction is hugely arbitrary and situational. To me, a true #3 who can anchor a second pairing is really none too different and maybe even "more valuable" than a guy playing in the #2 hole, depending on the situation. It's essentially the same thing.

Which is where concern over the "upside" of calling Juolevi a "Top-3D" projection is pretty unfounded. If Juolevi pans out as a Top-3 defenceman, you've got a heck of a player on your hands...as high an upside as you could reasonable expect at pick #5.


I do completely understand where you're coming from with the talk of "variance" in where top defencemen come from in the draft, and it's a fair point. But at the same time, i think what you're suggesting is teetering along the edge of a dangerous line. To where you're starting to bring "drafting for position" into the equation in an almost inverted sense. The idea of avoiding a specific position in the 1st round as a sort of "opportunity cost" principle, lends itself toward a dangerous precipice of bypassing a "BPA" for a different position - because you think you can get that position later. Rest assured - most 2nd round picks don't turn into Norris caliber defencemen.

BPA is a lot more complicated than people like to portray i guess. For me, position is absolutely already factored in, along with type of player, the range of value on the type of player they project as. It's why i try to build a list with league+position groups first (ie. CHL Defencemen list). Then integrate them from there.




That said, for the record...i still have 4 forwards ahead of Juolevi. Matthews and Laine who i think project as potential franchise players who are by default the "#1 line" whoever they play with. And Dubois and Tkachuk, who i'd call bluechip Top-3 forwards. They're either going to play on a top line, or carry a second line.

But in principle, i don't have any real issue with Juolevi's upside. For me, he's a guy who projects as a Top-3D...where it's hard to see a lower end where he doesn't find a home as a quality Top-4D. He's got the smarts, the mobility, and a very good frame to work with, transitions the puck at a near-elite level, and has a huge amount of efficiency to his game that bodes very well for big minute potential at the next level. Lacking an "exceptional" tool perhaps, but the balance of overall traits is the type of Top-3 defenceman that you simply cannot find on the market. They are NOT available, and to even start a conversation on one...you're talking about trading a young Top-3 forward.

 

[bossram]

I haven't watched enough this season at all to have my own thoughts really, but it sounds like the others all have a skill that stands out more, the Joulevi. I could be totally wrong.

I am by no means a prospect expert either. I agree with your thoughts though. It sounds like Juolevi vs. others are just a matter of skillset differences. Personally I don't see a gap between the overall impact Juolevi could make vs. others. See Below.

A "#2" is a fairly vague description of a player though. What kind of #2 will Juolevi be? A Tanev type that is great in his own end, decent in transition, and meh in the ozone? A more balanced type that can give you PP minutes and push the play offensively both in transition but also in the ozone?

Because if it is more the latter then yes, he should be in the conversation for 5. But I think the concern with Juolevi is that no one has seen much of that offensive push in London where 42 points in 57 games for an offensive juggernaut seems underwhelming. People are also taking cues from London posters who have reportedly been a bit perplexed at some of the high expectations for Juolevi based on having watched him play (unlike most who have really only seen him at the WJC on a beastly team Finland).

A Tanev (or Hamhuis, which everyone seems to be agreeing with) -type at #5 would still be a pretty good pick. Hamhuis was a top-pair calibre player for about a decade. No guarantee he becomes that good though, but there is also no guarantee a Sergachev or Bean becomes an offensive dynamo either. The reason to take Juolevi would be I assume that he is "less likely to bust" while still having top-pair upside.

Like I said though, my preference is PLD.

 

[racerjoe]

I am by no means a prospect expert either. I agree with your thoughts though. It sounds like Juolevi vs. others are just a matter of skillset differences. Personally I don't see a gap between the overall impact Juolevi could make vs. others. See Below.

What I find a bit funny about myself, is the Canucks this year turned me off hockey a bit this year. Durring the Torts year, I was super excited about our top pick and watched a ton of Junior games. This year, the Canucks just made hockey tough for me to stomach.

 

[CanaFan]

There's certainly something to be said for that variance. It really is hard to ignore that top scoring forwards tend to come from the first round, particularly those Top-5/10 picks. And there are plenty of examples of Top-pairing defencemen coming from other places on the other end of that.

There's a very good chance however, that whoever we get at #5 isn't going to be a real "franchise player". As illlustrated in the list MS posted, 5th pick forwards are far from a guaranteed star. You hope your pick flourishes and blows expectations out of the water, but pragmatically speaking based on the history...you're more likely talking about a Voracek, Wheeler, etc level player, as a realistic "upside" expectation. You're doing very well if you can get that (though those two examples ironically, never really contributed to their full potential for their drafting teams). Great players, top-line players...but not "face of the franchise" types. Anything short of that type of real homerun hit...and you're probably talking about more of a good Top-6 forward (more of a B.Schenn, Brassard, Ladd type - again, very nice pieces to have, but none of whom realized full potential with their drafting team).

At which point, a puck-moving Top-3D is very comparable, or even favourable in "upside" to a Top-6F for me. Especially in terms of how impossible it is becoming to acquire a young Top-3 defenceman in today's NHL. Teams just don't trade them - unless we're talking a Johansen-Jones swap for a bonafide young #1C, or a messy contract situation like Hamilton (still swapped for a strong 1st [projected Top-6F like Connor, Barzal, etc.] and a pair of 2nds in a deep draft and a $6M contract). Other than that...how many other quality young Top-3D even change hands? They're just not available.

Which is where for me, the draft and "BPA" is really more about "MVP" - Most Valuable Piece. Looking at a realistic range of expected outcomes for a prospect, and which prospect holds value most through that range of realistic expected outcomes. And how hard or costly it is to acquire that type of player elsewise.

I think you also have to look at how teams are constructed these days in the draft-heavy cap era. Top-line and top-pairing mean a lot less these days than "duos" and the type of minutes. Which is where the "upside" of a player like Juolevi kind of surges. Good, well built teams don't just throw their 2 best defencemen together by default, or their 3 best forwards on a single "top line". Calling someone like Juolevi a "Top-3D" upside is essentially saying...he's a guy who is either the sidekick on an all-world calibre pairing beside a true #1D, part of a tag-team top-pairing with a pair of #2s, or an absolute anchor of a very good 2nd pairing that plays substantial defensive minutes.

I mean, just look at the sort of partners most #1D types play with most - It's a lot of guys who would otherwise be more like a #4 maybe even a #5 in a vacuum. McNabb/Muzzin, Methot, Spurgeon, old Campbell, old Markov, old Martin, etc., even Stralman, Bouwmeester are more like "#3" types in the classic sense. This is where depth and diversification is so important - and where that "true #1D" is so rare and important, in that they can carry a #4 type to lofty heights. And also where a guy like Juolevi projects can have huge "upside" - and a ton of qualities that make him a "safe" bet to become a Top-3D of some sort, whether he's on your "top pairing" or you get more out of a player like that anchoring a "second pairing". Basically...i think the #2/3 distinction is hugely arbitrary and situational. To me, a true #3 who can anchor a second pairing is really none too different and maybe even "more valuable" than a guy playing in the #2 hole, depending on the situation. It's essentially the same thing.

Which is where concern over the "upside" of calling Juolevi a "Top-3D" projection is pretty unfounded. If Juolevi pans out as a Top-3 defenceman, you've got a heck of a player on your hands...as high an upside as you could reasonable expect at pick #5.


I do completely understand where you're coming from with the talk of "variance" in where top defencemen come from in the draft, and it's a fair point. But at the same time, i think what you're suggesting is teetering along the edge of a dangerous line. To where you're starting to bring "drafting for position" into the equation in an almost inverted sense. The idea of avoiding a specific position in the 1st round as a sort of "opportunity cost" principle, lends itself toward a dangerous precipice of bypassing a "BPA" for a different position - because you think you can get that position later. Rest assured - most 2nd round picks don't turn into Norris caliber defencemen.

BPA is a lot more complicated than people like to portray i guess. For me, position is absolutely already factored in, along with type of player, the range of value on the type of player they project as. It's why i try to build a list with league+position groups first (ie. CHL Defencemen list). Then integrate them from there.




That said, for the record...i still have 4 forwards ahead of Juolevi. Matthews and Laine who i think project as potential franchise players who are by default the "#1 line" whoever they play with. And Dubois and Tkachuk, who i'd call bluechip Top-3 forwards. They're either going to play on a top line, or carry a second line.

But in principle, i don't have any real issue with Juolevi's upside. For me, he's a guy who projects as a Top-3D...where it's hard to see a lower end where he doesn't find a home as a quality Top-4D. He's got the smarts, the mobility, and a very good frame to work with, transitions the puck at a near-elite level, and has a huge amount of efficiency to his game that bodes very well for big minute potential at the next level. Lacking an "exceptional" tool perhaps, but the balance of overall traits is the type of Top-3 defenceman that you simply cannot find on the market. They are NOT available, and to even start a conversation on one...you're talking about trading a young Top-3 forward.

Wow, trying to tackle this post is like a bird trying to eat an elephant. Where to start? Oh well, i'll try to just respond in general.

The main point where we differ is in the "scarce-ness" of these 2-3 D men. I think there is a conflation of "they are valuable and therefore hard to trade for" and "they are hard to find". These are not the same thing I think.

Specifically, I think the issue is whether you are talking BEFORE they develop into a top 2-3 D or AFTER they are already there. Because if you are talking AFTER they are already there, then yes I agree they are a valuable and hard commodity to acquire. But where do teams find them in the first place? Overwhelmingly it is outside of the top 10 of the draft. Teams CAN acquire their own top 2-3 D men, not by trading for them, but by drafting and developing their own.

I mean look at our own roster in the past few years:

- McCabe acquired as 1/2 of a trade for a former captain and franchise winger
- Aucoin 5th round pick
- Jovonovski best piece of a large package for a holdout star winger
- Ohlund 13th overall
- Salo traded for a 3rd line winger
- Edler 3rd round pick
- Bieksa 5th round pick
- Hamhuis UFA
- Erhoff traded for a couple of low value prospects
- Tanev not-highly-coveted college UFA
- Hutton 5th round pick
- Tryamkin (maybe someday?) 3rd round pick


All of these guys fit very nicely into your description of the value and play of a 2-3 Dman. None of them are true elite 1D players who are in the discussion for Norris Trophies or command $7M+ salaries. But they certainly fit (or soon will in the case of Hutton) the description of type and value you've given. And look at how they've been acquired. Late round picks, UFA, trades for low value assets. Yes the trades and UFA have come when the players are typically later in their careers, but this is true for most trades anyway. I just don't see the "impossible" to acquire viewpoint that you have put forward, unless you are talking about "impossible to trade for before their 24th birthday" or something specific like that. But who really cares when you acquire them? Given the nature of the position, you are probably better off having a mix of guys who are 20-25 that you have drafted yourself and a few guys who are older that you have traded for or signed as UFA's.

Now let's look at forwards, or specifically the ones that would legitimately qualify as TOP LINE forwards over the years.

- Mogilny traded for in mega-package of 1st round pick, top young player
- Bertuzzi acquired as 1/2 of a trade for a former captain and franchise winger
- Naslund stole for a marginal draft bust
- Morrison (marginally a first liner but let's include him) traded for former star winger
- D. Sedin 2nd overall
- H. Sedin 3rd overall
- Kesler (didn't actually play top line but to be fair he could have) 23rd overall
- Boeser (maybe?) 23rd overall
- ??? Others ???

I don't consider guys like Carter, Burrows, and Vrbata that have had their primary success only through riding shotgun with the Sedins and never been top line players anywhere else in their careers.

Over similar time frames (1994 -> today) we've acquired through draft, trade, or UFA roughly 6 clear cut top line forwards plus one dubious one (Morrison). 2 of those forwards came as top 3 picks in the draft, another (Mogilny) cost a fortune to acquire at the time. That leaves 2 that were acquired when they were quite young and lucky for us blossomed well beyond anyone's expectations of them and another (Kesler) that was just a good pick in a super strong draft.

Compare that with 11 (leaving out Tryamkin) top 2-3 D that were acquired for nothing more costly than a 13th overall pick (Ohlund) or a 3rd line winger (Salo).

Seems to me that you CAN get these quality / level of D in various ways, including drafting with later picks, UFA, and trades when they are a bit older.

Conversely, acquiring a legitimate top line F - not a superstar, but just a regular 60+ point producer who can be counted on to produce for several years - is nearly impossible without getting absolutely lucky (Naslund, Bertuzzi) or drafting at the top end of the draft (Sedins). Now maybe we got lucky with Boeser as we did with Kesler so it shows you can also get top line F outside of the top 10 as well, but those picks are also 12 years apart so the frequency by which we get so lucky seems to be quite low.


So that, in a rather large nutshell, is the basis of my counter-argument that - when given the opportunity to draft a potential Top Line F - you should lean for the rarer, harder-to-acquire piece. Not necessarily *more important*, but since you need both top line forwards and top 4 D I think it makes sense to be strategic about where you get them. Just like goalies. No one would argue they aren't important and nothing can sink a team faster than sub-par goaltending. But the unpredictable nature of goalies means you are better off from a total asset management POV taking "stabs in the dark" with later picks and hoping one gets you the next Ben Bishop than investing 5th overall picks, even though that can work out too.

 

[ginner classic]

Wow, trying to tackle this post is like a bird trying to eat an elephant. Where to start? Oh well, i'll try to just respond in general.

The main point where we differ is in the "scarce-ness" of these 2-3 D men. I think there is a conflation of "they are valuable and therefore hard to trade for" and "they are hard to find". These are not the same thing I think.

Specifically, I think the issue is whether you are talking BEFORE they develop into a top 2-3 D or AFTER they are already there. Because if you are talking AFTER they are already there, then yes I agree they are a valuable and hard commodity to acquire. But where do teams find them in the first place? Overwhelmingly it is outside of the top 10 of the draft. Teams CAN acquire their own top 2-3 D men, not by trading for them, but by drafting and developing their own.

I mean look at our own roster in the past few years:

- McCabe acquired as 1/2 of a trade for a former captain and franchise winger
- Aucoin 5th round pick
- Jovonovski best piece of a large package for a holdout star winger
- Ohlund 13th overall
- Salo traded for a 3rd line winger
- Edler 3rd round pick
- Bieksa 5th round pick
- Hamhuis UFA
- Erhoff traded for a couple of low value prospects
- Tanev not-highly-coveted college UFA
- Hutton 5th round pick
- Tryamkin (maybe someday?) 3rd round pick


All of these guys fit very nicely into your description of the value and play of a 2-3 Dman. None of them are true elite 1D players who are in the discussion for Norris Trophies or command $7M+ salaries. But they certainly fit (or soon will in the case of Hutton) the description of type and value you've given. And look at how they've been acquired. Late round picks, UFA, trades for low value assets. Yes the trades and UFA have come when the players are typically later in their careers, but this is true for most trades anyway. I just don't see the "impossible" to acquire viewpoint that you have put forward, unless you are talking about "impossible to trade for before their 24th birthday" or something specific like that. But who really cares when you acquire them? Given the nature of the position, you are probably better off having a mix of guys who are 20-25 that you have drafted yourself and a few guys who are older that you have traded for or signed as UFA's.

Now let's look at forwards, or specifically the ones that would legitimately qualify as TOP LINE forwards over the years.

- Mogilny traded for in mega-package of 1st round pick, top young player
- Bertuzzi acquired as 1/2 of a trade for a former captain and franchise winger
- Naslund stole for a marginal draft bust
- Morrison (marginally a first liner but let's include him) traded for former star winger
- D. Sedin 2nd overall
- H. Sedin 3rd overall
- Kesler (didn't actually play top line but to be fair he could have) 23rd overall
- Boeser (maybe?) 23rd overall
- ??? Others ???

I don't consider guys like Carter, Burrows, and Vrbata that have had their primary success only through riding shotgun with the Sedins and never been top line players anywhere else in their careers.

Over similar time frames (1994 -> today) we've acquired through draft, trade, or UFA roughly 6 clear cut top line forwards plus one dubious one (Morrison). 2 of those forwards came as top 3 picks in the draft, another (Mogilny) cost a fortune to acquire at the time. That leaves 2 that were acquired when they were quite young and lucky for us blossomed well beyond anyone's expectations of them and another (Kesler) that was just a good pick in a super strong draft.

Compare that with 11 (leaving out Tryamkin) top 2-3 D that were acquired for nothing more costly than a 13th overall pick (Ohlund) or a 3rd line winger (Salo).

Seems to me that you CAN get these quality / level of D in various ways, including drafting with later picks, UFA, and trades when they are a bit older.

Conversely, acquiring a legitimate top line F - not a superstar, but just a regular 60+ point producer who can be counted on to produce for several years - is nearly impossible without getting absolutely lucky (Naslund, Bertuzzi) or drafting at the top end of the draft (Sedins). Now maybe we got lucky with Boeser as we did with Kesler so it shows you can also get top line F outside of the top 10 as well, but those picks are also 12 years apart so the frequency by which we get so lucky seems to be quite low.


So that, in a rather large nutshell, is the basis of my counter-argument that - when given the opportunity to draft a potential Top Line F - you should lean for the rarer, harder-to-acquire piece. Not necessarily *more important*, but since you need both top line forwards and top 4 D I think it makes sense to be strategic about where you get them. Just like goalies. No one would argue they aren't important and nothing can sink a team faster than sub-par goaltending. But the unpredictable nature of goalies means you are better off from a total asset management POV taking "stabs in the dark" with later picks and hoping one gets you the next Ben Bishop than investing 5th overall picks, even though that can work out too.

I don't advocate picking a D in the top 5 this year but you are ignoring things with your simple analysis.

• There is a massive shortage of quality top 4 D in the NHL today. That is a fact. If it was so easy to acquire D then everyone would do it.
• You are better off taking your top choice in the draft rather than your 30th choice. That seem self-evident
• Teams that build around wingers don't win anything. Your best players need to be in the spine of your team.
• We have not allocated a top pick to a D since 2005. We're more than due.
• Our 22 and under D are far, far worse than our 22 and under forwards. That does not bode well for the future.
• D take longer to develop, you don't want to rely on 20 year olds providing a defensive shield when your forwards are in their prime. The sooner we get them, the more likely we are to win something.
• The hit rate on first round D is far higher than any other round (duh).

We need top D prospects. We need to allocate some first round picks to that position over the next four years or we will never win anything.

 

[CanaFan]

I don't advocate picking a D in the top 5 this year but you are ignoring things with your simple analysis.

[*]There is a massive shortage of quality top 4 D in the NHL today. That is a fact. If it was so easy to acquire D then everyone would do it.

Shortage is a relative term. You could just as easily argue there is a shortage of quality goal scorers in today's NHL. Whatever the level, it is what it is. If we lack it, so too do other teams. There were certainly more top 2-3 D in the league than 30 goal scorers, yes? Does your "league shortage" argument then not advocate in favor of prioritizing a potential 30 goal scorer?

[*]You are better off taking your top choice in the draft rather than your 30th choice. That seem self-evident

That is a neutral argument as it can be applied to any position in hockey. If we needed a goalie would you argue that taking him 5th is better than taking him 30th? Of course you are likely to get a better D at 5 than 30. Just as you are likely to get a better F at 5 than 30. The IMPORTANT question is how big is the GAP between taking a Forward at 5 vs 30 compared to taking a D at 5 vs 30? Can you still get an "almost" as good Forward at 30 as you can at 5? How about a D? That is far more important than just the idea that better players come earlier in the draft.

[*]Teams that build around wingers don't win anything. Your best players need to be in the spine of your team.

Teams that are poorly built don't win anything. Reducing it to an emphasis on single position is overly simplistic as it ignores how the rest of your team is built as well as the quality of the player you are talking about in the draft. I mean, if we had the 2OA pick would you argue to take Juolevi over Laine because "you win with D, not wingers?" It's a useless argument because it ignores the basic fact that you can build your team in more ways than just with a single top 5 draft pick. Look at our team today. Tanev - UFA, Hutton 5th round, Hamhuis UFA, Edler 3rd round. Not a single costly asset to assemble what is a fairly good - not elite - top 4. Look at our top line. D. Sedin 2nd overall. H. Sedin 3rd overall. And of course we completely lack a 3rd top line forward and have for years, promoting guys who are actually 2nd/3rd line talents because we lack anything better in large part because we haven't drafted in the top 5 since the Sedins.

[*]We have not allocated a top pick to a D since 2005. We're more than due.

And we haven't drafted a Goalie in the first round since 2004. By your argument we are "more due" to draft a goalie this year. It's an irrelevant argument. We have Tanev who is the quality of a top 10 pick. We have Hutton who has the potential to be as good as a top 10 pick. The whole point I'm making is you don't NEED to draft D in the top 10 to find quality D. Our very team is an example of that.

[*]Our 22 and under D are far, far worse than our 22 and under forwards. That does not bode well for the future.

That is a purely arbitrary cut off (actually not really, you chose it to exclude Hutton but include Horvat obviously). Our 22-26 D are far, far better than our 22-26 forwards. Who cares? You don't build a team in a 4 year age cohort. Taken together, our collective D - players and prospects - under 30 is undoubtedly healthier than our collective F core under 30. Especially when you consider Edler is just 30 and can be expected to play at a good level for another 3-5 years. The Sedins meanwhile - literally our ENTIRE FIRST LINE - will be 36 when camp opens and have 2 years left in their deals here. Which is more likely to drop off a cliff in the next few years?

[*]D take longer to develop, you don't want to rely on 20 year olds providing a defensive shield when your forwards are in their prime. The sooner we get them, the more likely we are to win something.

Good thing then we have Edler, Tanev, and Hutton to carry 3/4 of our top 4 D for the next 3-6 years. Gives our next wave of D plenty of time to develop and come up behind them. Which Forwards would you suggest plopping onto the top line once the Sedins are gone?

[*] The hit rate on first round D is far higher than any other round (duh).

Same as every position.

We need top D prospects. We need to allocate some first round picks to that position over the next four years or we will never win anything.

We need lots of things. We don't need to allocate first round picks to get quality D see Tanev, Hutton, Edler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Erhoff, Salo, etc etc going back 20+ years. The last statement is sheer fear mongering and not worth replying to.

 

[geebaan]

what are people opinions of Samuel Girard?

 

[The Drop]

what are people opinions of Samuel Girard?

I thought he did an excellent job of sticking to his guns when apprehending Dr Richard Kimble. Never making it personal.

 

[Bad News Benning]

what are people opinions of Samuel Girard?

Pros

Great puck mover
Crafty/smart
Good skater

Cons

listed at 5'10" but probably closer to 5'8"/5'9"
Muffin shot

One of those guys who would be a top 15 pick if we has taller but the size is hard to ignore with all these big forwards coming into the league.

 

[racerjoe]

I thought he did an excellent job of sticking to his guns when apprehending Dr Richard Kimble. Never making it personal.

Can you say the same when he was trying to catch Mark J. Sheridan?

 

[The Drop]

Can you say the same when he was trying to catch Mark J. Sheridan?

Ya he went off the rocker there.

 

[jeromemorrow]

I don't advocate picking a D in the top 5 this year but you are ignoring things with your simple analysis.

• There is a massive shortage of quality top 4 D in the NHL today. That is a fact. If it was so easy to acquire D then everyone would do it.
• You are better off taking your top choice in the draft rather than your 30th choice. That seem self-evident
• Teams that build around wingers don't win anything. Your best players need to be in the spine of your team.
• We have not allocated a top pick to a D since 2005. We're more than due.
• Our 22 and under D are far, far worse than our 22 and under forwards. That does not bode well for the future.
• D take longer to develop, you don't want to rely on 20 year olds providing a defensive shield when your forwards are in their prime. The sooner we get them, the more likely we are to win something.
• The hit rate on first round D is far higher than any other round (duh).

We need top D prospects. We need to allocate some first round picks to that position over the next four years or we will never win anything.

Both of you guys make very valid points. But I think for this year.. if there's a sure thing, we should pick PLD or Tkachuk. Dmen take longer to develop.. and we gotta play to our strengths which is in this case, Jim Benning - a talent evaluator.

The good thing with this draft is that 2nd round onwards, we are 3rd overall in each round... JB has an eye for talent so after we pick PLD/Tkachuk.. we can pick 3-4 dmen....

Just look at the top dmen around the league... Kris Letang (62nd overall, 2005), Shea Weber (49th overall, 2003), PK Subban (43rd overall, 2007)

And of course there are those found in the 1st round: Alex Pietrangelo (4th overall, 2008), Erik Karlsson (15th overall, 2008)

There is elite dmen to be found in the 2nd round.... It's just that we don't know who they'll be yet... Time will tell.. But to say that we need to splash in the 1st round for a dmen... who knows.. they may or may not develop... I think the Canucks do not have the luxury to choose.. We need to pick a guy that's a sure thing to be in our lineup more than anything else.

 

[Nick Lang]

I prefer Gustav Forsling over all the top Ds in this draft

Lol, brutal, simply brutal.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Lol, brutal, simply brutal.

And other fanbases say we overrate our own people.

 

[Ainec]

Juolevi the top ranked D has 14 points in 18 games while Marner and Tkachuk have over 40 and Dvorak 35...

Sergachev is intriguing but since when does Russia produce top D (other than Provorov)

with defenseman you look at their current level and disregard the past, Forsling is killing it and is Swedish to boot




Sometimes Benning double downs on mistakes (Sbisa) but other times he corrects them quickly (Clendening for nothing), so hopefully we trade this 5th overall pick back to Chicago for Forsling as we really need that D and to speed up the rebuild process.

 

[Verviticus]

Lol, brutal, simply brutal.

agreed that it is another indictment of our current management

 

[banme*]

Juolevi the top ranked D has 14 points in 18 games while Marner and Tkachuk have over 40 and Dvorak 35...

Sergachev is intriguing but since when does Russia produce top D (other than Provorov)

with defenseman you look at their current level and disregard the past, Forsling is killing it and is Swedish to boot




Sometimes Benning double downs on mistakes (Sbisa) but other times he corrects them quickly (Clendening for nothing), so hopefully we trade this 5th overall pick back to Chicago for Forsling as we really need that D and to speed up the rebuild process.

This is sarcasm right. Honestly can't tell.

 

[rypper]

What I find a bit funny about myself, is the Canucks this year turned me off hockey a bit this year. Durring the Torts year, I was super excited about our top pick and watched a ton of Junior games. This year, the Canucks just made hockey tough for me to stomach.

I agree 100%. Didn't like how that happened, because I've been a die hard Canucks fan for a while but the team iced this passed season just turned me off. I'd have the games on but in the background while doing something else. The roster and ice times allotted to players who I just don't like really killed things. Finding it hard to get excited about next season when hearing WD's recent comments.

Get ready for another season of Derek Dorsett getting prime oz starts and games being blown in the 3rd/ot.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

Juolevi the top ranked D has 14 points in 18 games while Marner and Tkachuk have over 40 and Dvorak 35...

Sergachev is intriguing but since when does Russia produce top D (other than Provorov)

with defenseman you look at their current level and disregard the past, Forsling is killing it and is Swedish to boot




Sometimes Benning double downs on mistakes (Sbisa) but other times he corrects them quickly (Clendening for nothing), so hopefully we trade this 5th overall pick back to Chicago for Forsling as we really need that D and to speed up the rebuild process.

I want a re-do on the Forsling deal as much as anyone, but suggesting moving the fifth overall pick for him is one of the stupidest things I've seen someone suggest on this board (and that's saying a lot, considering the delusion of some posters here).

 

[jimslob]

Thank god we passed on that bum from lower Slovakia to take a stud defenceman in the first round.
It was a huge need of ours at the time, defence that is
To bad our pick died in a motorcycle crash but the other kid hasn't done much either.
What the heck was his name? Krapitar? I think his team went out in the first round this year.
Point being you NEVER draft for position always BPA and everyone except the Canucks scouting and management knew that was Kopitar. If you were on this site back then you would know how ballistic it went when we passed on him.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Fair comments all. Up until the U18's I was very high on McLeod however his play there, combined with his slow back half of the OHL season lowered his stock unfortunately. I still really love his motor and the pace he plays at but when I'm looking at offensive ceiling I'm not sure I see the same upside as PLD.

Chychrun v Juolevi is a rough one. Whereas with McLeod I dinged him for perhaps a lower offensive ceiling (but great tools and potential to play all 3 zones), I went the other way with Juolevi and Chychrun. While I like Chychrun's tools and desire to push play and create opportunities, I prefer Juolevi's steadiness for the D position. It's tough because I don't really *love* any of the D prospects but I do feel Juolevi will play and be a solid top 4 D. I don't know what Chychrun will be. He could be Jovanovski or he could be Jack Johnson. I don't like that risk in the top 10.

Fair point re:Jost and NHle but I'm giving Jost the benefit of the doubt after his U18's performance. He has such a balanced offensive skill set and isn't sub-6 feet like Keller which erases some of the size issues. There's just something about the kid that appeals to me.

Fabbro is another tough one for me. I thought he was good at the U18's but not enough (unlike Jost) to totally overcome the BCHL question. I'm not sure he offers the offensive dimensions that Serge, Bean, and Chychrun give nor the safe upside of Juolevi. Probably wouldn't take him above any of those guys for that reason.

Moving this here so that the PLD/Tkachuk discussion can continue on without it.

1. I didn't mean to imply that McLeod had/has the same offensive upside as Dubois... just that they are similar in many respects. At the mid point, these two and Nylander were battling it out for the #6 spot. I think that bears consideration -- even now.

2. I don't fault you for thinking this way about Juolevi/Chychrun. For Dmen, it's a lot 'safer' banking on intelligence. I'll talk about this later when discussing Fabbro.

3. He's a Toews-esque talent. Not as big, but perhaps a bit more skilled. It's difficult banking on a forward that doesn't have plus size or speed. The lesson Hodgson teaches us is that projection, and not so much current impact is key.

4. This is interesting. I agree that Fabbro does not offer the "offensive upside" of Sergachev/Bean/Chychrun, nor does he offer the "safety" or surety of Juolevi's upside. After all, we are still accounting for a disparate league when evaluating him. However, all that said, he probably embodies the best combination of offensive upside + safety/surety in this draft. Particularly because he's steady at ES while offering a PP dimension. While McAvoy and even Juolevi have questionable PP upside and Sergachev/Bean/Chyhcrun have questionable ES defense.

That's what is so intriguing with Fabbro. He can play the game in any capacity.

 

[CanaFan]

Moving this here so that the PLD/Tkachuk discussion can continue on without it.

1. I didn't mean to imply that McLeod had/has the same offensive upside as Dubois... just that they are similar in many respects. At the mid point, these two and Nylander were battling it out for the #6 spot. I think that bears consideration -- even now.

2. I don't fault you for thinking this way about Juolevi/Chychrun. For Dmen, it's a lot 'safer' banking on intelligence. I'll talk about this later when discussing Fabbro.

3. He's a Toews-esque talent. Not as big, but perhaps a bit more skilled. It's difficult banking on a forward that doesn't have plus size or speed. The lesson Hodgson teaches us is that projection, and not so much current impact is key.

4. This is interesting. I agree that Fabbro does not offer the "offensive upside" of Sergachev/Bean/Chychrun, nor does he offer the "safety" or surety of Juolevi's upside. After all, we are still accounting for a disparate league when evaluating him. However, all that said, he probably embodies the best combination of offensive upside + safety/surety in this draft. Particularly because he's steady at ES while offering a PP dimension. While McAvoy and even Juolevi have questionable PP upside and Sergachev/Bean/Chyhcrun have questionable ES defense.

That's what is so intriguing with Fabbro. He can play the game in any capacity.

All fair points really. I think there will be more movement in this draft than most people expect after the top 4 or 5. I could see guys like Brown and Jost going as high as 6 or falling out of the top 10. A guy like Bellows could easily crack the top 10 yet I don't think I've seen a single list that has him higher than 12. And the defenseman order is a complete guess for me. I *expect* Juolevi to go first but after that I think Chychrun, Bean, Sergachev, Fabbro, and McAvoy could go in almost any order. Lots of talent in the top 15 but after 5 it gets hard to make a case for one player being definitively higher than another.

After seeing how "off the board" Boston went last year I'm prepared for just about anything to happen really. Just not in the top 5 of course

 

[Bleach Clean]

All fair points really. I think there will be more movement in this draft than most people expect after the top 4 or 5. I could see guys like Brown and Jost going as high as 6 or falling out of the top 10. A guy like Bellows could easily crack the top 10 yet I don't think I've seen a single list that has him higher than 12. And the defenseman order is a complete guess for me. I *expect* Juolevi to go first but after that I think Chychrun, Bean, Sergachev, Fabbro, and McAvoy could go in almost any order. Lots of talent in the top 15 but after 5 it gets hard to make a case for one player being definitively higher than another.

After seeing how "off the board" Boston went last year I'm prepared for just about anything to happen really. Just not in the top 5 of course

I'm more trying to gauge Chyhcrun vs. Fabbro right now. To me, Chychrun represents the most versatile and rounded Defensive talent in the draft. However, his issues with IQ are Fabbro's strength. However, the common refrain is that Chychrun has the higher upside. Does that mean he is a #1 Dman? Because I think Fabbro can reach the upside of a #2 Dman. So is there a stark difference between their respective ceilings?

 

[CanaFan]

I'm more trying to gauge Chyhcrun vs. Fabbro right now. To me, Chychrun represents the most versatile and rounded Defensive talent in the draft. However, his issues with IQ are Fabbro's strength. However, the common refrain is that Chychrun has the higher upside. Does that mean he is a #1 Dman? Because I think Fabbro can reach the upside of a #2 Dman. So is there a stark difference between their respective ceilings?

Chychrun's a tough one to project. Because a physically talented defenseman who makes bad decisions loses value quite quickly. I mean they can still have *pretty good* value like Jovo and Phaneuf but they always seem to be more disappointing than less talented guys who just play within themselves.

Now how much of that is actually just the bias of "expectation" rather than actual performance is hard to tell. I mean Jovo was ultimately a net benefit when he was on the ice, but the perception was that he should have been better than he was as exemplified by derisive names like "Special Ed".

So honestly I don't know what to make of Chychrun if that is in fact how he projects. Worth drafting? Certainly. The hard part is figuring out where the opportunity cost of the other players you are passing on tips in his favour.