2023 NHL Entry Draft Discussion - One Month Away

[604]

Hamhuis was a #1 in every way except he didn't get 25 PP points to drive his production into the area people associate with #1 defenders. Elite top-pairing shutdown guy, quality ES producer, great on the PK, top-10 in Norris voting in 11-12, selected for Canada at the Olympics.

After that, yes, they had four #2 defenders in Bieksa/Salo/Ehrhoff/Edler. Salo probably was actually #1 level as well if he ever could have stayed healthy and maintained his best level of play for a full season.

Didn’t Ehrhoff finish 4 or 5 in Norris voting? Then left on a giant contract making him one of the hughest paid D men?

 

[Raistlin]

there are top4 RHD that is deserving to be picked at 11. You'll see Bob's list in a couple of days. At least Reinbacher is definitely going top10, other lists has Simachev/ASP/Willander anywhere in 11-20.

My point is that in the current way the league is drafting, a potential top 4 RHD will be scooped up with the top 10-12 picks and never made available until they are showing signs of busting. However deep your forward ranks are, you cannot simply run and gun without a dependable defensive stopper in the playoffs. the more of them the better. Canucks has 0, a good team may need 2-3 of them.

a guy like Willander/Simashev is arguably more valuable as a 2C for this franchise. Even if they end up just good enough to anchor the second pair.

IF Benson falls, I can see them take him, other than Benson, I believe of all the other potential fallers, I cannot see PA prioritizing over a D.

Unless he believes a guy like Wood can be a physical beast like Lucic....

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

there are top4 RHD that is deserving to be picked at 11. You'll see Bob's list in a couple of days. At least Reinbacher is definitely going top10, other lists has Simachev/ASP/Willander anywhere in 11-20.

My point is that in the current way the league is drafting, a potential top 4 RHD will be scooped up with the top 10-12 picks and never made available until they are showing signs of busting. However deep your forward ranks are, you cannot simply run and gun without a dependable defensive stopper in the playoffs. the more of them the better. Canucks has 0, a good team may need 2-3 of them.

a guy like Willander/Simashev is arguably more valuable as a 2C for this franchise. Even if they end up just good enough to anchor the second pair.

IF Benson falls, I can see them take him, other than Benson, I believe of all the other potential fallers, I cannot see PA prioritizing over a D.

Unless he believes a guy like Wood can be a physical beast like Lucic....

Obviously, your pointing out 'projected' Top 4 D men...In the past few years there's been a number of underwhelming projected top 4 D picked fairly high..Broberg,Soderstrom,Smith,Foote...

Its such a fickle position to predict....

 

[LemonSauceD]

Very solid interview. Love that he is a gym freak and loves to challenge himself. A guy who I’m very high on. I think he has the IQ and skill to be a top line forward.

Reminds me of Boldy in 2019.

 

[biturbo19]

Didn’t Ehrhoff finish 4 or 5 in Norris voting? Then left on a giant contract making him one of the hughest paid D men?

Yeah. Hamhuis was great, but i think the reality of that situation was...we had basically 5 guys who were Top-3D. The important thing, was that they had a variety of skillsets that all fit together really well. HamJuice had a bizarre sort of chemistry where Bieksa's aggressive dynamic element really helped Hamhuis look like a borderline #1D, and Dan's stability helped Bieksa look like a really solid shutdown pairing D. That allowed Ehrhoff to garner a whole ton of attention as the offensive engine on the back end of the defence and play precisely to his own strengths.

There was never really much of a consensus over which of Hamhuis/Ehrhoff/Edler was even our "best defenceman" because they all just sort of slid into the perfect roles respectively.


I'm a big believer in that sort of approach when it comes to the draft too. If you can just collect that sort of depth of Top-3D...you can cobble together a group where it doesn't matter if you have that perennial Norris contender classic #1D sort of guy. If you can grab one of those, you do it obviously. But they're rare and the more realistic ambition is just to collect guys who can contribute together in big minutes and especially control play at even strength.

The PP element is something you can find cheap specialists for if it really comes down to it. I don't really put a lot of emphasis on it as a priority. But especially less of a priority when we now already have Hughes as a PPQB and core piece...PLUS Hronek as well now, who they're presumably committed to given what they paid in assets for him.


So just get good solid defencemen who have that potential to comfortable handle 20+ minutes a night and ideally some higher leverage minutes. Build your blueline that way. Realistically...it's extremely difficult and costly to acquire those sorts of players in their prime for any kind of reasonable price elsewise. So use the draft to do it.

 

[Raistlin]

Yeah. Hamhuis was great, but i think the reality of that situation was...we had basically 5 guys who were Top-3D. The important thing, was that they had a variety of skillsets that all fit together really well. HamJuice had a bizarre sort of chemistry where Bieksa's aggressive dynamic element really helped Hamhuis look like a borderline #1D, and Dan's stability helped Bieksa look like a really solid shutdown pairing D. That allowed Ehrhoff to garner a whole ton of attention as the offensive engine on the back end of the defence and play precisely to his own strengths.

There was never really much of a consensus over which of Hamhuis/Ehrhoff/Edler was even our "best defenceman" because they all just sort of slid into the perfect roles respectively.


I'm a big believer in that sort of approach when it comes to the draft too. If you can just collect that sort of depth of Top-3D...you can cobble together a group where it doesn't matter if you have that perennial Norris contender classic #1D sort of guy. If you can grab one of those, you do it obviously. But they're rare and the more realistic ambition is just to collect guys who can contribute together in big minutes and especially control play at even strength.

The PP element is something you can find cheap specialists for if it really comes down to it. I don't really put a lot of emphasis on it as a priority. But especially less of a priority when we now already have Hughes as a PPQB and core piece...PLUS Hronek as well now, who they're presumably committed to given what they paid in assets for him.


So just get good solid defencemen who have that potential to comfortable handle 20+ minutes a night and ideally some higher leverage minutes. Build your blueline that way. Realistically...it's extremely difficult and costly to acquire those sorts of players in their prime for any kind of reasonable price elsewise. So use the draft to do it.

I actually believe you need 3 on account for injuries in the playoffs. basically the formula for the canucks should be
1 for pure offense in Hughes,
2 for shutdown duties (we have 0),
1 a rover like a Bieksa whose sum is greater than his parts, I believe that to be Hronek, who can suit up for PPQB in case Hughes gets banged up.
Maybe one year when the team is really solid, PA can acquire a guy like Boston with Orlov, Edm with Ekholm at the TDL with a precious 1st for that run. That guy is a luxury and an over the top move.

IF you dont draft one of the 2 guys for shutdown duties, good luck acquiring one that is serviceable, not to mention 2. last year there was so much hype that Livingstone is a potential solid free asset that can step into top4. Nashville can tell you, hes not close to ready. Hirose was decent in a mini run, but I doubt Tocchet will saddle him with anything but 3rd pair usage.

IF canucks draft Reinbacher/Simashev/Willander, they still need to somehow find a way to acquire the other solid guy, is that EP on D? Or is that whomever comes back from a trade for Garland or Boeser? Soucy? Carlo? in 2024, they should aim to just get in, 2025 hopefully EP on D will be able to let us see if he has top4 potential, maybe that #11th pick can play 5 games at the end of the year. 2026 could be the year they do what Edm did this year.

fun to project.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yes, players who score a lot at lower levels usually translate well. Everyone should know that at this point and you don’t need to get into NHLe nonsense to show that.

As far as I'm aware, NHLe is the only metric that tries to factor for disparate leagues. Without it and SEAL adjusted scoring, we wouldn't have known that Pettersson's draft production was historic. It helped quantify that production for people.

Again, I expect Smith will translate well, although not at the position people are hoping for. He is a huge talent with huge offensive upside and the numbers reflect that.

Perreault is small and a bad skater. You’d have no argument that players with his level of production normally do well but that combination is not a historically friendly one. And even when guys do make it like a Seth Jarvis (whose NHLe at age 17 was more than he scored in the actual NHL at age 21 after developing well) the upside there might not match the on-paper production.

Leonard is the 3rd wheel with two big talents and the question becomes how much he’s floated by them. What would his production look like if he played for the Omaha Lancers instead of being glued to those two guys?

Re Perreault: Upside may not match production, sure, but that goes doubly so for Wood, who is less offensively competent and has just as many question marks about his skating.

The point about Jarvis not production his NHLe is a good one though, I'll grant. That's a valid criticism of the NHLe. But if we use NHLe as a comparison just for draft performance, and do not superimpose it onto the NHL, it could still be useful.

On the Americans: My point is that you are not first giving that line it's production edge when comparing it to Wood's own production.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Some of that is fair.

I do think Danielson relies more on producing off the rush at 5v5 than Scheifele did as a prospect. Though it's funny, in that Scheifele has improved as a skater to the point that a lot of his NHL offense is actually generated off the rush now. I think it's also fair to wonder how much of that is Danielson just skating himself into opportunities where there simply isn't a better option available with teammates lagging behind...and in zone, where his teammates just aren't as capable of sustaining that cycle and working that sort of offensive game consistently.

But i think you have to fall back a little bit on Danielson's powerplay play. Where i think he shows he's got a lot more creativity and vision than he's often able to flex at even strength, for lack of linemates getting to advantageous positions to put the puck to.

It's a real struggle with him though, trying to figure out where the limits of his hockey ability start and where the limits of his teammates begin. Frustrating player to watch because it often looks like he's on a bit of an island...but isn't necessarily the sort of player who is ever going to carry a line on an island like that either.

Hintz is an interesting comparable. I don't really see them as overly similar stylistically...but it's an interesting example of a guy who isn't necessarily all that "dynamic" individually...but does just use his skating and overall positional sense and solid skillset to constantly be in the right place at the right time, and moves the puck really efficiently to more creative linemates (Robertson) and better finishers in good positions (Pavelski) to be a really effective #1ish Center overall. Maybe that is what Danielson ends up like?

It's also interesting in that in his draft year, i had Hintz pegged as more of a rangy "high floor/low ceiling" middle-6 sort of Center. Which does sound a lot like the Danielson you're describing. But maybe a little bit off the projection i'm describing.

Danielson on the PP is interesting because it makes me think: Did he need that extra room to do this? Time and space is only going to get worse as we move forward.

That's why I'm trying not to overthink it with him. I give him a bump to his production for playing on a bad team, and I evaluate based upon that assertion. To me, he's right there with Barlow, and that puts him below a few other considerations for me at 11.

 

[strattonius]

Guaranteed Wood gets drafted ahead of Perreault.

They are relatively comparable prospects as far as where they are projected to get drafted, their floor/ceilings, etc etc but Wood is going to entice almost every organization to lean towards him because of his size. I know its old school but I definitely agree with it when it comes to comparing certain players. If it's Benson or Wood wellllll then the disparity in upside might lean more towards Benson.

 

[biturbo19]

Danielson on the PP is interesting because it makes me think: Did he need that extra room to do this? Time and space is only going to get worse as we move forward.

That's why I'm trying not to overthink it with him. I give him a bump to his production for playing on a bad team, and I evaluate based upon that assertion. To me, he's right there with Barlow, and that puts him below a few other considerations for me at 11.

Yeah. That's a fair assessment. Whether it's a lack of supporting teammates at his level or not...Danielson does fairly often seem to overplay his hand so to speak. He gets himself out ahead of everyone else, or isolated from them. He's clearly not one of those players who can dictate the pace and flow of the game and truly elevate lesser players that way. I think that's also relatively in line with Scheifele even as a developed Pro. He's able to play at that extremely high level...but he isn't able to control the play like an elite playmaking #1C. But then...i don't think anyone is under any illusion that this is Danielson's ceiling. He's reaching more toward that lower end of #1C as an absolute "ceiling". More likely he's a Middle-6 guy who brings a lot of value there.

Fair comment to the PP thing as well. I think you can look at it either way. Is that giving him the opportunity to have his teammates catch up to his level? Or is it that he's got more time and space himself? Tricky to delineate between the two things with the circumstances and information we're given. That's evaluation...that's where a draft is won or lost. Figuring out which is the case, or what the ratio of effect is there at least, even if it's somewhere in between.


I can see where Barlow is generally considered to be in a similar tier or cluster. He's also got a whole host of questions and sorting that has to be done with his game. Personally, i prefer Danielson and view Barlow as a much lower upside pick. But it's certainly open to interpretation.


The other guy in that cluster for me is Calum Ritchie and i think he's maybe an even more challenging and interesting evaluation. He's kind of a weird mix that lands somewhere in between the two, but also outside of them on either end of evaluation. He seems to be pigeonholed as a bit of a "safe pick" type player with that low upside, but to me...he's maybe actually a more natural offensive producer than either of Danielson or Barlow. But he's a lot less polished and consistent all around. He really just reminds me of McCann as a prospect...where you can see the offensive upside, but the consistency isn't there and that gets them labelled as a "low upside" middle-6 guy.

I don't get the impression Ritchie is even in the conversation for that sort of Top-10ish pick, but if Barlow is there, i think Ritchie should be too. I'd take him over Barlow easily. But with all three of these guys...it's sorting out translatability and "upside" in some situations that obscure things.

Guaranteed Wood gets drafted ahead of Perreault.

They are relatively comparable prospects as far as where they are projected to get drafted, their floor/ceilings, etc etc but Wood is going to entice almost every organization to lean towards him because of his size. I know its old school but I definitely agree with it when it comes to comparing certain players. If it's Benson or Wood wellllll then the disparity in upside might lean more towards Benson.

Probably true. But if there's one thing i'd guarantee about the draft...it's that you're a fool if you guarantee anything about it.

 

[pitseleh]

As far as I'm aware, NHLe is the only metric that tries to factor for disparate leagues. Without it and SEAL adjusted scoring, we wouldn't have known that Pettersson's draft production was historic. It helped quantify that production for people.

Yeah, where they are useful is for comparing across leagues. Most people now have an intuitive sense for, say, CHL scoring but not for a lot of other leagues.

Just need to recognize they have limitations too. They aren’t age adjusted so probably penalize players who do well in tougher leagues that usually have older players transition to the NHL relative to others where the players who transition are on more of an upward trajectory. They don’t account for ice time distribution either so you have to take them with a grain of salt - usage might translate often but not always, especially for younger players. They’re a good gut check but far from precise.

10-15 years ago (or longer) I wouldn’t be surprised if an NHLe model would have beat most if not all teams at drafting but less so today, as teams have gotten better at integrating data. The best is good integration between analytics and scouts.

 

[Luck 6]

Yeah. That's a fair assessment. Whether it's a lack of supporting teammates at his level or not...Danielson does fairly often seem to overplay his hand so to speak. He gets himself out ahead of everyone else, or isolated from them. He's clearly not one of those players who can dictate the pace and flow of the game and truly elevate lesser players that way. I think that's also relatively in line with Scheifele even as a developed Pro. He's able to play at that extremely high level...but he isn't able to control the play like an elite playmaking #1C. But then...i don't think anyone is under any illusion that this is Danielson's ceiling. He's reaching more toward that lower end of #1C as an absolute "ceiling". More likely he's a Middle-6 guy who brings a lot of value there.

Fair comment to the PP thing as well. I think you can look at it either way. Is that giving him the opportunity to have his teammates catch up to his level? Or is it that he's got more time and space himself? Tricky to delineate between the two things with the circumstances and information we're given. That's evaluation...that's where a draft is won or lost. Figuring out which is the case, or what the ratio of effect is there at least, even if it's somewhere in between.


I can see where Barlow is generally considered to be in a similar tier or cluster. He's also got a whole host of questions and sorting that has to be done with his game. Personally, i prefer Danielson and view Barlow as a much lower upside pick. But it's certainly open to interpretation.


The other guy in that cluster for me is Calum Ritchie and i think he's maybe an even more challenging and interesting evaluation. He's kind of a weird mix that lands somewhere in between the two, but also outside of them on either end of evaluation. He seems to be pigeonholed as a bit of a "safe pick" type player with that low upside, but to me...he's maybe actually a more natural offensive producer than either of Danielson or Barlow. But he's a lot less polished and consistent all around. He really just reminds me of McCann as a prospect...where you can see the offensive upside, but the consistency isn't there and that gets them labelled as a "low upside" middle-6 guy.

I don't get the impression Ritchie is even in the conversation for that sort of Top-10ish pick, but if Barlow is there, i think Ritchie should be too. I'd take him over Barlow easily. But with all three of these guys...it's sorting out translatability and "upside" in some situations that obscure things.



Probably true. But if there's one thing i'd guarantee about the draft...it's that you're a fool if you guarantee anything about it.

I guarantee Bedard goes 1 OA. Call me a fool again haha.

 

[Fulham]

Is Honzek too much of a risk at #11?

Saw him grow into being the best player on the giants as a rookie, Lanky with a really really good IQ. Would prefer Wood if he drops to us.

 

[racerjoe]

That's why I used the word "traditional". "Perceived" would also work.

You even saw the philosophy in the Ballard trade, although that obviously didn't work out, and in the Garrison signing.

This is why I am so in love with the Reinbachers and Willanders of the world. When someone tells me that a defender's biggest weakness is that they won't be able to quarterback a powerplay I only get more interested. Just load the system up with as many two-way defenders as possible.

Especially for a team like us that has Hughes. We don't need another dman to get a single point (ok I am exaggerating).

The two way profile for dman is so underated, and OFD profile is very overated. A dman needs to be trully elite at puck moving to be worth more than that solid guy, but we still just look too much at hockey card stats.

 

[strattonius]

Probably true. But if there's one thing i'd guarantee about the draft...it's that you're a fool if you guarantee anything about it.

Yup. It's a guessing game a lot of the time.

NHL players get drafted when they are 17/18 yr olds but you really don't see a proper development path until a player is 21/22.

 

[tyhee]

Didn’t Ehrhoff finish 4 or 5 in Norris voting? Then left on a giant contract making him one of the hughest paid D men?

Ehrhoff finished 8th in the 2011 Norris voting behind Lidstrom, Weber, Chara, Visnovsky, Yandle, Letang, and Byfuglien. The Canucks, when they couldn't agree on an extension with him, trades his negotiating rights to the Islanders for a 4th round pick, the Islanders traded those rights to the Sabres for a 4th round pick and the Sabres, much to their chagrin, signed him to a 10 year, $40 million contract which was front end loaded, $10 million paid in the first season, $ 8 million the second and only $1 million per over the last three. The Sabres bought out his contract after three seasons.

In those three seasons Ehrhoff was, subject to escrow, due to be paid $22 million. the buyout left the Sabres with $12 million (2/3 of the remainder) to pay him, so he was paid, again subject to escrow, $34 million on that contract for which he played for only three seasons, or over $11 million per season.

 

[arttk]

That doesn’t inspire any confidence in his model.

You would think at this point he would rework that model.

 

[Szechwan]

Whats the comparable for Wood if everything pans out? Wheeler?

 

[McDavid is too whiny]

Ehrhoff finished 8th in the 2011 Norris voting behind Lidstrom, Weber, Chara, Visnovsky, Yandle, Letang, and Byfuglien. The Canucks, when they couldn't agree on an extension with him, trades his negotiating rights to the Islanders for a 4th round pick, the Islanders traded those rights to the Sabres for a 4th round pick and the Sabres, much to their chagrin, signed him to a 10 year, $40 million contract which was front end loaded, $10 million paid in the first season, $ 8 million the second and only $1 million per over the last three. The Sabres bought out his contract after three seasons.

In those three seasons Ehrhoff was, subject to escrow, due to be paid $22 million. the buyout left the Sabres with $12 million (2/3 of the remainder) to pay him, so he was paid, again subject to escrow, $34 million on that contract for which he played for only three seasons, or over $11 million per season.

I remember looking at it recently, and after getting rid of the three dummy years it turns into a 37 mill over 7 years deal, or about 5.29 per season, with a 4 million cap hit.

Before the buyout, of course.

 

[DFAC]

Benson > Moore > Wood > Simashev > Willander > Danielson > ASP

Is my preference if they’re all there

 

[Peen]

going back and watching some of those circa 2010 canucks games, i wasn't exactly as enthralled with hamhuis as i expected to be

 

[biturbo19]

Is Honzek too much of a risk at #11?

Saw him grow into being the best player on the giants as a rookie, Lanky with a really really good IQ. Would prefer Wood if he drops to us.

What do you see Honzek becoming as a Pro?


For me...he's a very Mantha-esque prospect. Do you see something else there that would merit a selection at 11?

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Benson > Moore > Wood > Simashev > Willander > Danielson > ASP

Is my preference if they’re all there

I'm similar except that for me Wood is after Willander and I'm open to inverting Simashev and WIllander but not married to either order.

 

[DFAC]

Whats the comparable for Wood if everything pans out? Wheeler?

Jason Robertson - just went back and looked through Robertson’s pre draft scouting and it looks almost identical to what Woods could be

If Wood can figure out his skating he has all the tools to be a superstar forward. That mix of skill and size is hard to find

Would be totally fine with him at 11 - and for those saying hes another Virtanen, they play nothing alike

 

[GrogZilla]

there are top4 RHD that is deserving to be picked at 11. You'll see Bob's list in a couple of days. At least Reinbacher is definitely going top10, other lists has Simachev/ASP/Willander anywhere in 11-20.

My point is that in the current way the league is drafting, a potential top 4 RHD will be scooped up with the top 10-12 picks and never made available until they are showing signs of busting. However deep your forward ranks are, you cannot simply run and gun without a dependable defensive stopper in the playoffs. the more of them the better. Canucks has 0, a good team may need 2-3 of them.

a guy like Willander/Simashev is arguably more valuable as a 2C for this franchise. Even if they end up just good enough to anchor the second pair.

IF Benson falls, I can see them take him, other than Benson, I believe of all the other potential fallers, I cannot see PA prioritizing over a D.

Unless he believes a guy like Wood can be a physical beast like Lucic....

Simashev is a LHD