Post-Game Talk: Canucks 4 @ Sharks 2 | Wait what??

[Just A Bit Outside]

If people don't see the difference between potentially picking 5/6th compared to 3rd then I don't know what to say.

Simple: Pick in the Top 3 = potential franchise changer

Juolevi (since apparently he's preferred over Chychrun) is nice be won't have anywhere near the impact that this team needs.

We need franchise level players and not 2nd liners with 1st line potential.

 

[yoss]

Honey Badger does not give a **** what you think. (please note the word **** is in italics)

I like to see them get a good pick too, but i'd be lying if i said it was entirely disappointing to see my team win a hockey game one time.

That said, im all for them losing out down the stretch. Least until they've locked up a position, at 29th or whatever the case will be.

 

[lousy]

If you move down a slot from 8.5 to 7.5%.. you have decreased your balls and chances of winning by about 12%..
Moving from 7.5 to 6.5 you've cut your chances by 13%...

I.e. 1000 balls...1 winner.. if you own 100 balls -10% of winning.. but if take away 10 balls, you are left with 90 balls losing 10 % of your balls to other teams. Sure you only drop 1% in the big picture.. but you've lost 10% of your original balls.

I prefer to look at the big picture. 10% of our balls sounds worse than it is when it comes to our actual chance.

 

[fancouver]

If people don't see the difference between potentially picking 5/6th compared to 3rd then I don't know what to say.

Simple: Pick in the Top 3 = potential franchise changer

Juolevi (since apparently he's preferred over Chychrun) is nice be won't have anywhere near the impact that this team needs.

We need franchise level players and not 2nd liners with 1st line potential.

Everyone sees the difference between picking 3rd and 5th, but it's not as dramatic as you're making it out to be. As long as the Canucks don't fall out of the top 8, we're going to be getting the best prospect since the Sedins.

Yeah, Matthews would be nice, even Laine would be nice, but the if we end up 5th, we still have a shot at Chychurn (which is actually a greater need) and Tkachuk-which are solid players moving forward.

With the way the Canucks are currently built, we'd be fine if we went for a *depth top 6*, rather than a heavy *top 3*.

Tkachuk, Horvat, Virtanen, McCann, Baertschi is still a solid top 6 moving forward. Add in 1 or 2 free agent signings and we can have an LA offense, rather than a Chicago offense.

 

[quat]

There are no sensible arguments to be made about winning the remaining five games.

In the final 28 games of the 1998-99 season, the Canucks went 5-18-0-5.

If the Canucks had won three more of those games, this organization would have picked 4th overall in the 1999 NHL Entry Draft and never drafted either of the Sedins. That would have effectively made it impossible to acquire either of them, as capturing the 3rd overall selection played a pivotal role in making the deals necessary to capture the other pick with which to select both Sedins.

We could have gone 8-15-0-5, but it would have changed this franchise's future. Nobody would have remembered those wins beyond that season. A simple change from 5-18-0-5 to 8-15-0-5 is not an intelligent swap for the opportunity to draft the Sedins in the 1999 NHL Entry Draft.

It's crazy to think that anybody would want to forfeit a top-level, franchise-altering talent for a few meaningless, forgettable wins that nobody will have any regard for two months from now.





People are still bitter about Perreault vs Tallon -- that one was completely out of anyone's hands. The following year, we picked 3rd overall -- Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne were selected 1st and 2nd overall, respectively. Two points separated us from Marcel Dionne. We picked Jocelyn Guevremont. This franchise has managed to, on several occasions, ruin itself by winning just enough games to miss out on the top talents of numerous draft years. We are extremely fortunate that this did not happen in 1999.

So, it's best to draft 1st overall ... like the year the Sedins were drafted? heh ... sometimes we just have to see how things play out. You're just pulling examples where things didn't work out for teams and completely ignoring all the examples where teams didn't finish last but still drafted the best players. Heck, the Oilers didn't even finish last and yet they ended up with McDavid, so by your criteria the Oiler actually failed because they didn't come in last.

 

[PM]

This is really simple, I'm surprised some people don't get it. It's more about not falling back too far then actually winning #1. If we finish 6th last we could potentially be picking 9th which is not cool. Matthews is a pipe dream but we absolutely need to be picking top-5. Although I'm scared Benning would pick someone else over Dubois or Chychrun so lets just aim for top-3 so he can't get "creative".

 

[lousy]

If people don't see the difference between potentially picking 5/6th compared to 3rd then I don't know what to say.

Simple: Pick in the Top 3 = potential franchise changer

Juolevi (since apparently he's preferred over Chychrun) is nice be won't have anywhere near the impact that this team needs.

We need franchise level players and not 2nd liners with 1st line potential.

It is not about wanting to pick 3 or 6th, it is about our actual chance of getting those picks based on where we end up in the standings.

 

[quat]

Ugh, the loser mentality has already infected this fanbase.

There is nothing wrong with wanting losses so we get a high a draft pick as possible. I'm part of that group. But when we're giving lectures as to why everyone should be cheering for losses and criticizing some for cheering for wins, in my opinion that's how you know it's gone too far and a serious loser mentality has crept in.

I want losses but I will NEVER question any fan who cheers for his or her team to win. Geez people, it's starting to feel like Edmonton in here. I'm serious. We're better than this!

Yes, this is where I'm at as well. Well said.

 

[lousy]

This is really simple, I'm surprised some people don't get it. It's more about not falling back too far then actually winning #1. If we finish 6th last we could potentially be picking 9th which is not cool. Matthews is a pipe dream but we absolutely need to be picking top-5. Although I'm scared Benning would pick someone else over Dubois or Chychrun so lets just aim for top-3 so he can't get "creative".

I get it, but the odds of a draft position is not so heavily based on where a team ends up outside of the 2nd last place. 1 or 2% is not going to make or break anything, which is why the issue of where teams draft was not brought up at the last gm's meeting.

 

[fancouver]

This is really simple, I'm surprised some people don't get it. It's more about not falling back too far then actually winning #1. If we finish 6th last we could potentially be picking 9th which is not cool. Matthews is a pipe dream but we absolutely need to be picking top-5. Although I'm scared Benning would pick someone else over Dubois or Chychrun so lets just aim for top-3 so he can't get "creative".

That's a valid concern, picking 9th would be a nightmare for the Canucks, but at the same time, some people are getting too dramatic over the 1st win in 10 games. This is the definition of a tank. You're bound to win some even if you're not trying-especially against a team you just played 72 hours ago.

 

[quat]

This team didn't want to be Edmonton.

This team didn't want to be Toronto.

Congrats to them because they are not.

They are Columbus. Forever stuck in mediocrity.

I'd bet Columbus even wins a Stanley Cup before this organization ever does.

Forever? The Canucks have been mediocre for like one season in the last 10. Either they've been trending up, at the top or sucking. Last year was the first they were mediocre.

 

[PM]

I get it, but the odds of a draft position is not so heavily based on where a team ends up outside of the 2nd last place. 1 or 2% is not going to make or break anything, which is why the issue of where teams draft was not brought up at the last gm's meeting.

It's not about the % of picking first (at least in my example). It's about the % of getting knocked down anywhere from 1-3 draft positions. Obviously we were not going to lose all 15 games but just one win can really cost us due to how bad the other teams around us are. Pretty sure one win was the difference between Bennett and Virtanen a few years ago.

 

[quat]

Well cheering itself has no bearing on outcomes, so I don't see much point there.

It comes down mainly to what outcomes make you happy (hence you cheer) or unhappy (hence you boo or gripe or whatever).

Winning games at this point in the season makes me (and seemingly others) unhappy. I respect anyone's right to cheer if they like but I personally can't understand it for the life of me. A loss yesterday increases the chances of having 15 years of getting to cheer for Matthews or Laine or Chychrun. A win yesterday decreased those chances. Admittedly it didn't end them, but it did hurt them. And I can't understand why anyone would be ok with that just to see Hansen score his 20th or whatever. Again I'm not judging, but I am honestly dumbfounded.

Personally, I'd rather see the team pick up competent management so all the draft picks are developed well and then coached to succeed in the NHL. At the moment we've got the opposite of that, and simply drafting high won't fix it.

Do I want the team to lose the rest of the games? Yes I do. Will I actively cheer for it ... well, kind of, but if they win, they win. I'm certainly not going to crap on players who are paid to win, for actually, you know ... winning.

Others are free to feel differently about this. I've got no issue with people supporting the team in their own way. So that makes me better than everyone!

 

[lousy]

It's not about the % of picking first (at least in my example). It's about the % of getting knocked down anywhere from 1-3 draft positions. Obviously we were not going to lose all 15 games but just one win can really cost us due to how bad the other teams around us are. Pretty sure one win was the difference between Bennett and Virtanen a few years ago.

But they have changed the rules since then. It really is about the %, especially when it comes to those who do not finish in the bottom two spots. It isn't as much of an advantage as it was, which is why they changed the rules.

 

[dwarf]

Outside of last place the difference in percentage of getting a pick is 5% between 5th and 2nd.

How on earth are people getting so upset about sliding up and down within that range is beyond me. That is why I cheer for wins at this point.

It really doesn't make a difference. People can throw around the logical argument, but is it really logical when moving up a spot gives you a 1% increase in the draft lottery at the expense of team morale?

Its not 1 percent we lost 6 percent in one night from picking last.

Maybe you should tell this to all the other Gms of all the teams that are almost tied for last right now.

If they want to win a few games that would be great. Then we have a higher chance of drafting higher.

Instead they are playing their 3rd string goalies, and only winning when they have to play each other. Hmm.

 

[dwarf]

I just want to imagine how badly this board will melt down if you pull out a double win against Edmonton... I highly suspect that HF will be evacuated that day.

I fully expect to win our last three games.

Edmonton and Calgary know the value of drafting higher.

This will put us around 6th with the chance of dropping to 9th. Meltdown? I melted down when Benning gave Garrison away for Vey.

I am posting to let people know my displeasure, so just maybe changes will happen that are positive.

 

[dwarf]

Everyone sees the difference between picking 3rd and 5th, but it's not as dramatic as you're making it out to be. As long as the Canucks don't fall out of the top 8, we're going to be getting the best prospect since the Sedins.

Yeah, Matthews would be nice, even Laine would be nice, but the if we end up 5th, we still have a shot at Chychurn (which is actually a greater need) and Tkachuk-which are solid players moving forward.

With the way the Canucks are currently built, we'd be fine if we went for a *depth top 6*, rather than a heavy *top 3*.

Tkachuk, Horvat, Virtanen, McCann, Baertschi is still a solid top 6 moving forward. Add in 1 or 2 free agent signings and we can have an LA offense, rather than a Chicago offense.

Best prospect since the Sedins'

I think this year is a weak draft year, granted the Sedin's were taken in one too.

I think the top 5 players are sure NHLers, but after that players could easily bust.

Heck anyone can bust but I don't see anything past the top 5 who is likely to compare to the Sedin's.

There is a reason why there is 6 teams almost tied for last, its the playoffs for the prospects. And one team will lose for sure, and the lottery could make some more.

We don't want a repeat of the Stamkos year, and us taking Hodgson when we just miss the elite talent. Wilson was the cut off, and of course we passed on both top D that went after us.

 

[THE Green Man]

Best prospect since the Sedins'

I think this year is a weak draft year, granted the Sedin's were taken in one too.

I think the top 5 players are sure NHLers, but after that players could easily bust.

Heck anyone can bust but I don't see anything past the top 5 who is likely to compare to the Sedin's.

There is a reason why there is 6 teams almost tied for last, its the playoffs for the prospects. And one team will lose for sure, and the lottery could make some more.

We don't want a repeat of the Stamkos year, and us taking Hodgson when we just miss the elite talent. Wilson was the cut off, and of course we passed on both top D that went after us.

You mean Gardiner and Sbisa right Relooking at that draft, in hindsight us having drafted Karlsson or Myers or Carlsson would have been a complete game changer.

 

[DL44]

I get it, but the odds of a draft position is not so heavily based on where a team ends up outside of the 2nd last place. 1 or 2% is not going to make or break anything, which is why the issue of where teams draft was not brought up at the last gm's meeting.

100 balls total. they'll pick one for the winner.
You have 2 balls... 2% chance of winning...
Someone takes one of your balls...
You're chances of winning just got cut in half.. despite dropping merely 1% overall.

I know overall it's about 1% drop per slot... but i think the other way of looking at is what's ruffling feathers... and not entirely unwarranted.
People just want more balls.

 

[dwarf]

You mean Gardiner and Sbisa right Relooking at that draft, in hindsight us having drafted Karlsson or Myers or Carlsson would have been a complete game changer.

Just hearing Sbisa's name makes me sad. It will be a fist pumping happy day when he is not on my team.

Yeah Karlsson looks like the best player from that draft. And yes I have argued this before. But this sort of thing can happen when teams are focused on centers.

 

[fancouver]

Best prospect since the Sedins'

I think this year is a weak draft year, granted the Sedin's were taken in one too.

I think the top 5 players are sure NHLers, but after that players could easily bust.

Heck anyone can bust but I don't see anything past the top 5 who is likely to compare to the Sedin's.

There is a reason why there is 6 teams almost tied for last, its the playoffs for the prospects. And one team will lose for sure, and the lottery could make some more.

We don't want a repeat of the Stamkos year, and us taking Hodgson when we just miss the elite talent. Wilson was the cut off, and of course we passed on both top D that went after us.

Top 5 and then bust? Please explain.

The top 3 are going to be game changers. After that, I think there's a lot more than just 2 players who will be NHLers than you're suggesting:

Chychurn
Tkachuk
Nylander
Dubois

all look like top 2 pairing or top 6 forwards. That's already 8 prospects that should be an impact in a few years for their respective teams.

Then you have Sergachev and Bean who look like top 4 D pairing and a guy like Juolevi, who according to the Vancouver Sun, is shooting up the Canuck draft rankings to be the best D available.

 

[dwarf]

Top 5 and then bust? Please explain.

The top 3 are going to be game changers. After that, I think there's a lot more than just 2 players who will be NHLers than you're suggesting:

Chychurn
Tkachuk
Nylander
Dubois

all look like top 2 pairing or top 6 forwards. That's already 8 prospects that should be an impact in a few years for their respective teams.

Then you have Sergachev and Bean who look like top 4 D pairing and a guy like Juolevi, who according to the Vancouver Sun, is shooting up the Canuck draft rankings to be the best D available.

I believe that players taken at any draft position can bust. History has proven this.

I think teams draft at the highest to the lowest in hoping that they don't get a bust. Hence the lower you draft the higher the probability of catching a bust. The higher the greater chance of success.

I don't want to fully say what I think about this years prospects without seeing their full body of work.

But I see this order.

Matthews
Laine
Puli
Tkachuk
Chychrun
Dubois
Nylander
Juolevi

I think there is separation after the top three, and again after the next two. And obviously after this group.

 

[lousy]

100 balls total. they'll pick one for the winner.
You have 2 balls... 2% chance of winning...
Someone takes one of your balls...
You're chances of winning just got cut in half.. despite dropping merely 1% overall.

I know overall it's about 1% drop per slot... but i think the other way of looking at is what's ruffling feathers... and not entirely unwarranted.
People just want more balls.

But what I don't get is why some are so upset about that 1%? Those are such small odds, and really don't play a large part in getting a higher pick.

I cheer for a win at this point, I know the canucks are not going to go on some crazy winning streak so I know every win is just a moral victory for the team. The players are human, and could use some good vibes right now.

 

[THE Green Man]

Just hearing Sbisa's name makes me sad. It will be a fist pumping happy day when he is not on my team.

Yeah Karlsson looks like the best player from that draft. And yes I have argued this before. But this sort of thing can happen when teams are focused on centers.

Honestly though, such poor drafting when looking in hindsight and not taking our positional needs into account:

2011: Took Jensen, could have had Gibson or Saad (2nd rounders)
2010: Ballard deal, could have had Kuznetsov or Justin Faulk (2nd rounder)
2009: Took Schroeder, could have had ROR (2nd rounder)
2008: Took Hodgson, could have had Myers, Karlsson, Carlsson, Eberle, Josi (2nd rounder), Hamonic, Stepan (2nd rounders- passed on both twice)
2007: Took White, could have had PK Subban, Simmonds (2nd rounders passed on both twice)
2006: Took Grabner, could have had Giroux, Lucic (2nd rounder)
2005: Bourdon (RIP), could have had Kopitar 1 pick later, could have had Quick, Bishop or Letang in the 2nd round but we took Raymond
2004: Would actually keep the Schneider pick
2003: Took Kesler, could have had Perry, Bergeron (2nd rounder), Weber (2nd rounder)
2002: Traded back for Linden, could have had Steen, Ward, Keith (2nd rounder that we passed on twice)

That's pretty poor and somewhat unfair in judging in hindsight, but missing on that many players while having only one of these guys we took left in the organization is pretty piss poor drafting. I mean personally there's only the Schneider pick I approve of in hindsight and the Bourdon pick as we never got to see him in his prime. Obviously if we had changed any of those picks our seeding in the following draft would be different but could you imagine if we could have gotten:

ROR-Kopitar-Giroux
Saad-Kuznetsov-Bergeron
XXX-Stepan-Simmonds

Keith-Karlsson
XXX-Subban


Quick

Looks like a damn allstar team and solves the RHD crisis we have been in for years

 

[PM]

I agree with you on a few of those but it's hard to say we should have taken an elite defenseman who went very late in the second round with our mid first round pick. If it's a few picks after then sure but I think almost everyone wishes they picked Giroux with their first rounder that year. And there is no way we draft Gibson while we already have Lou, Schneider and Lack in the system.