Prospect Info: Canucks select William Lockwood in 3rd Round, 64th Overall

[lawrence]

as a video scout, he kinda reminds me of Logan Couture, but cmon, JIm Benning proved us wrong, remember last year? Oliver Kylington? Then we were like who the hell is Brock Boesser? We thought he was a right wing Cody Hodgson. one year later we are like when is Boeser leaving College?

I kinda love this pick. Hope he is near ppg next year in Minnesota. He does have elite skating, awesome hands, and a tremendous work ethic.

 

[Get North]

Those are 3. I would also add Lockwood, Stukal, and Mackenzie from this draft as guys that are very low ceiling picks relative to their draft position. That makes 6 in 3 drafts. Also Virtanen, god bless the kid cause I do like him, was always a floor pick more than a ceiling pick relative to the other options at 6. Hell even Juolevi is described in some circles as the safest defenseman but not necessarily the one with the highest ceiling (Sergachev). That's not to say Juolevi wasn't a fine pick, just that it aligns with the trend I'm seeing.

He's also traded Shinkaruk for Granlund (risky top 6 scorer for safer bottom 6 utility forward), McCann+ for Gudbranson, Kassian for Prust, and Forsling for Clendenning.

Hes had a few 'ceiling' picks as well - Forsling, Boeser, Jasek, Zhukenov - but overall I think the tendency has been to grab guys with an emphasis on physicality, size, and/ character and a de-emphasis on skill level. It's not 100% to be sure but it's higher than I would like.

Ceiling and floor are subjective. I don't think you can necessarily say that one player is a safe bottom 6 player for everyone, people will have different views and opinions. Just because you're big, fast, physical, doesn't mean you will automatically become a bottom 6 player in the NHL at the very least. Look at Kyle Beach, big kid that goes to the net, physical, not a NHL regular.

Especially in today's NHL, a small offensive player can fill a role on the 3rd line, there is no rule now where a small player has to be top 6 and a big player gets the spot over the small guy in the bottom 6. Sam Gagner is filling a role as a 3rd line centre. Marcus Kruger, barely 6'0 plays on the 4th line for the Hawks. Teravainen was playing a checking role parts of this season. Justin Fontaine, Erik Haula, etc. In today's NHL a skill guy can play on any line IMO. Doesn't mean he's better than a big player because I think a big player would be more successful playing down in the line-up if they have similar production.

Lockwood is a nice player, aggressive, quick, really fast player that plays in straight lines. He has okay hands but he's an almost wreckless type of player. I think he can play anywhere in the line-up, you look at a guy like Rust that was on a line with Malkin doing the dirty work in the playoffs. Or a guy like, Upshall that was a good energy guy for the Blues in the bottom 6.

 

[Icebreakers]

as a video scout, he kinda reminds me of Logan Couture, but cmon, JIm Benning proved us wrong, remember last year? Oliver Kylington? Then we were like who the hell is Brock Boesser? We thought he was a right wing Cody Hodgson. one year later we are like when is Boeser leaving College?

I kinda love this pick. Hope he is near ppg next year in Minnesota. He does have elite skating, awesome hands, and a tremendous work ethic.

Michigan. Not Minnesota.

 

[CanaFan]

Ceiling and floor are subjective. I don't think you can necessarily say that one player is a safe bottom 6 player for everyone, people will have different views and opinions. Just because you're big, fast, physical, doesn't mean you will automatically become a bottom 6 player in the NHL at the very least. Look at Kyle Beach, big kid that goes to the net, physical, not a NHL regular.

Especially in today's NHL, a small offensive player can fill a role on the 3rd line, there is no rule now where a small player has to be top 6 and a big player gets the spot over the small guy in the bottom 6. Sam Gagner is filling a role as a 3rd line centre. Marcus Kruger, barely 6'0 plays on the 4th line for the Hawks. Teravainen was playing a checking role parts of this season. Justin Fontaine, Erik Haula, etc. In today's NHL a skill guy can play on any line IMO. Doesn't mean he's better than a big player because I think a big player would be more successful playing down in the line-up if they have similar production.

Lockwood is a nice player, aggressive, quick, really fast player that plays in straight lines. He has okay hands but he's an almost wreckless type of player. I think he can play anywhere in the line-up, you look at a guy like Rust that was on a line with Malkin doing the dirty work in the playoffs. Or a guy like, Upshall that was a good energy guy for the Blues in the bottom 6.

Oh I agree it is subjective but my eyes see more 'low upside' guys than I care to. Maybe Lockwood isn't a terrible pick but I just don't see a ton of value in reaching for energy players in the first 100 picks. Even if they reach their projection, they are in such plentiful supply that they can be easily signed or picked up in a trade. Prefer picks like Candella where maybe there is nothing there, but if you get lucky the resulting player - a mobile, aggressive D - is quite valuable either for team depth or trade for other assets.

 

[Get North]

Oh I agree it is subjective but my eyes see more 'low upside' guys than I care to. Maybe Lockwood isn't a terrible pick but I just don't see a ton of value in reaching for energy players in the first 100 picks. Even if they reach their projection, they are in such plentiful supply that they can be easily signed or picked up in a trade. Prefer picks like Candella where maybe there is nothing there, but if you get lucky the resulting player - a mobile, aggressive D - is quite valuable either for team depth or trade for other assets.

I can see why. Fox, Abramov, Bitten, Ang, Mete are all really exciting offensive players. I think when fans see more of Lockwood then they'll get excited. He's faster than Virtanen IMO, he has good hands, and he has a really good motor. I can see Lockwood becoming a 2nd line type of player that digs in the corners, goes to the net, and provides speed on the wing. He'd look nice beside Baertschi and Horvat.

 

[JA]

Feebster's highlight package for William Lockwood at the U18 tournament:



5'11'', 172 lbs. June 20, 1998 birthday.

 

[thefeebster]

If you aren't on the top two lines on the USNTDP, you aren't scoring points or playing that much.

Put him on almost any other team in the USHL and his production shoots up.

He's fast, gritty, and has sweet hands. Offensive creativity isn't the greatest but he's one of the faster north-south skaters in the draft. I really like him.

Lockwood was often paired with Frederic on the 2nd line, 2nd PP when i watched the NTDP play. But yeah, this year in particular, the playing time was given largely to that top line. So whatever 2nd PP minutes they got was paltry.

That line however with the introduction of Brown/Middlestadt/Yamamoto got knocked down to the 3rd line at the U18s, which makes his production there impressive. I tracked every shift of his at the U18s to make the video. That 3rd line didn't get a lick of PP time at the U18s. Lockwood wasn't used on the PK very often, sparingly (Keller-Anderson, Frederic-Sanchez were the main PK pairs).

I agree, every year there are guys who get buried on the NTDP, and its the scouts job to find which ones. I always try to pick one to key in on every year in the late rounds.

2012 it was Riley Barber (not so much buried but under-rated, no one was talking about him, trending well)
2013 it was John Hayden (a bit of a miss for me)
2014 it was Anders Bjork (trending well)
2015 it was Troy Terry (too early but decent rookie season)
2016 it was Will Lockwood (fingers crossed)

He definitely would have better numbers on a different team. I think he can follow in another Wolverine's footsteps and progression, Motte. I think Lockwood can have a similar impact at the NCAA level and would be that level of a prospect that Motte has become. I believe he can match or outpace some of his teammates that were ranked higher like Anderson and Frederic who somehow went in the 1st.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Lockwood was often paired with Frederic on the 2nd line, 2nd PP when i watched the NTDP play. But yeah, this year in particular, the playing time was given largely to that top line. So whatever 2nd PP minutes they got was paltry.

That line however with the introduction of Brown/Middlestadt/Yamamoto got knocked down to the 3rd line at the U18s, which makes his production there impressive. I tracked every shift of his at the U18s to make the video. That 3rd line didn't get a lick of PP time at the U18s. Lockwood wasn't used on the PK very often, sparingly (Keller-Anderson, Frederic-Sanchez were the main PK pairs).

I agree, every year there are guys who get buried on the NTDP, and its the scouts job to find which ones. I always try to pick one to key in on every year in the late rounds.

2012 it was Riley Barber (not so much buried but under-rated, no one was talking about him, trending well)
2013 it was John Hayden (a bit of a miss for me)
2014 it was Anders Bjork (trending well)
2015 it was Troy Terry (too early but decent rookie season)
2016 it was Will Lockwood (fingers crossed)

He definitely would have better numbers on a different team. I think he can follow in another Wolverine's footsteps and progression, Motte. I think Lockwood can have a similar impact at the NCAA level and would be that level of a prospect that Motte has become. I believe he can match or outpace some of his teammates that were ranked higher like Anderson and Frederic who somehow went in the 1st.

Wow, you put in a lot of work into your scouting.

Great info, thanks.

 

[biturbo19]

Maybe for the jokes alone but I don't see a lot in Pu, I feel he's a bit overrated. Gun to my head, I think I'd prefer Lockwood.

Yeah. Pu is obviously bigger, but i don't know what the "upside" is there. With Lockwood, there's a similar-looking floor imo, but there's a lot more "mystery box" element to him due to the team/situation he played in, and those flashes of some actually pretty high end skill there.

Lockwood's speed looks elite, I think he the best comparison is Darren Helm

I'd say that's a pretty fair comparison in terms of the type of player to expect.

I agree, every year there are guys who get buried on the NTDP, and its the scouts job to find which ones. I always try to pick one to key in on every year in the late rounds.

He definitely would have better numbers on a different team. I think he can follow in another Wolverine's footsteps and progression, Motte. I think Lockwood can have a similar impact at the NCAA level and would be that level of a prospect that Motte has become. I believe he can match or outpace some of his teammates that were ranked higher like Anderson and Frederic who somehow went in the 1st.

This is really the key here. The USNTDP generates some funky results because of the way talent is concentrated there, and the way opportunities are distributed within the team. There are guys who get kinda "buried" there for a variety of reasons. Some guys just end up shoehorned into a different "role". Hopefully that's the case with Lockwood - and he's certainly showns glimpses of the sort of ability where that may well have been the case.

I'm going to be really intrigued to see how Lockwood does at Michigan over the next couple years, where he should have an opportunity to grow into a different (bigger) role.

 

[Hansen]

I feel good about him, he gives me a Frank Vatrano vibe

 

[jeromemorrow]

Lockwood was often paired with Frederic on the 2nd line, 2nd PP when i watched the NTDP play. But yeah, this year in particular, the playing time was given largely to that top line. So whatever 2nd PP minutes they got was paltry.

That line however with the introduction of Brown/Middlestadt/Yamamoto got knocked down to the 3rd line at the U18s, which makes his production there impressive. I tracked every shift of his at the U18s to make the video. That 3rd line didn't get a lick of PP time at the U18s. Lockwood wasn't used on the PK very often, sparingly (Keller-Anderson, Frederic-Sanchez were the main PK pairs).

I agree, every year there are guys who get buried on the NTDP, and its the scouts job to find which ones. I always try to pick one to key in on every year in the late rounds.

2012 it was Riley Barber (not so much buried but under-rated, no one was talking about him, trending well)
2013 it was John Hayden (a bit of a miss for me)
2014 it was Anders Bjork (trending well)
2015 it was Troy Terry (too early but decent rookie season)
2016 it was Will Lockwood (fingers crossed)

He definitely would have better numbers on a different team. I think he can follow in another Wolverine's footsteps and progression, Motte. I think Lockwood can have a similar impact at the NCAA level and would be that level of a prospect that Motte has become. I believe he can match or outpace some of his teammates that were ranked higher like Anderson and Frederic who somehow went in the 1st.

Thanks for sharing your comments on Lockwood.

Was a bit disappointed we didn't go Abramov but seeing the video and your comments, my hopes are up again. Fingers crossed indeed.

 

[bossram]

Wasn't really happy with the Lockwood pick considering Dineen and Abramov and Bitten were still on the board, but good to know there are encouraging signs. Pronman also liked Lockwood at a "scouting" level.

Hopefully he progresses like Gaudette, another kind of "off the board" USHL Benning pick.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Wasn't really happy with the Lockwood pick considering Dineen and Abramov and Bitten were still on the board, but good to know there are encouraging signs. Pronman also liked Lockwood at a "scouting" level.

Hopefully he progresses like Gaudette, another kind of "off the board" USHL Benning pick.

Bitten was my guy.

I would have been okay with Dineen too but Lockwood was not on my radar at the time. I heard he was a bit of a reach?

 

[bossram]

Bitten was my guy.

I would have been okay with Dineen too but Lockwood was not on my radar at the time. I heard he was a bit of a reach?

Dineen was my preferred choice there by far. Would have rather had Bitten though as well (particularly if we were picking an energy/hustle type player that Lockwood is, Bitten has more upside).

By consensus rankings it was a reach.

Well see obviously.

 

[F A N]

Some GMs take a "shoot for the stars and you'll get the moon" approach to drafting. Skilled guys who might be too small, smart players who are still physically underdeveloped, injured guys who got buried on deep teams.

Benning on the other hand likes to go the "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" approach. A guy who is big and strong enough to maybe play in the NHL someday, even if his skill or hockey iq is on the low side. Guys who might get a cup of coffee in the NHL as a banger and crasher but legitimately has no chance to be a quality player, even with all the development in the world.

Of course there are exceptions - Jasek, Zhukenov, Brisebois - but I've seen more of it than I care to so far, especially in this draft and the 2014 one.

Benning's goal is to nail the high picks and try to get a player or two out of every draft. That's actually a common measure of draft success. What you're trying to do is to project the player. Every scout will tell you that basically once you get to the 2nd round you're dealing with flawed prospects or prospects having a weaknesses or weaknesses that if not improved upon can and will prevent them from making the NHL. I don't agree with the idea that you should only pick players with top 6 upside or top 4 upside. I also think that fans try to look at offensive production and perhaps some scouting reports and try to project a player. The Blackhawks drafted Andrew Shaw as a 20 year old. As an overager, he put up 22 goals and 54 points. Using your arguments, you wouldn't be happy with Benning picking Andrew Shaw right?

Those are 3. I would also add Lockwood, Stukal, and Mackenzie from this draft as guys that are very low ceiling picks relative to their draft position. That makes 6 in 3 drafts. Also Virtanen, god bless the kid cause I do like him, was always a floor pick more than a ceiling pick relative to the other options at 6.

Virtanen as a floor pick? You don't know what you're talking about. Every draft guide I have read considered Virtanen to have the best combination of size, speed, and skills. There are many who believe that if Virtanen had elite hockey IQ he would be the clearcut #1 overall pick. Guys like Nylander and Ehlers had first line upside but not elite production upside. Virtanen may not ultimately produce as many points as those guys but when you factor in his powerforward potential, there are many scouts who put his upside higher. Craig Button had Virtanen ranked 43rd on his list, but yet he said this about Virtanen: "He could be that grand slam player with enormous upside that teams are looking to draft." Mckenzie rankings had Virtanen ahead of Nylander and Ehlers.

Again, I don't think you get the idea of how scouting works. Scouts try to project a player. If there's a guy with top 6 potential but scouts think there is slim chance he will be a top 6 player in the NHL let alone an NHL player then why does this player make for a better pick than a player that scouts think can develop into an NHL player albeit as a 3rd line player. With high first round picks it makes sense to draft a player with the higher upside because presumably there is a good chance that that player can play in the NHL. But when you're dealing with later picks, it's not wrong to favour players you project to develop into NHL players over a player who has a higher upside IF he makes it but you don't think he will make it. If our scouts thought this way, we wouldn't have drafted Horvat. We would have drafted Nichushkin or Domi because those guys had supposedly higher upside.

I rather have an NHL 3rd or 4th line player than an AHL all star. I also think you are wrong about Benning's picks having low upside. Lockwood projects as a 3rd line player now but he has elite speed and soft hands. He happened to have played really well in tournaments.

I think you know nothing of Stukel. The scouting reports I read says he's a skilled forward with good puck skills, shot, skating, and offensive hockey IQ. He went from 5 goals to 36 and was near point per game after the trade. Totals that actually happen to be better than what Virtanen put up as a 19 year old.

McKenzie I can agree is not an offensive player. But seriously. One of the last picks in the 7th round. I don't mind if the Canucks favoured odds of making it to the NHL vs "ultimate upside" in the sense of if that player makes it the line or pairing he is likely to play.

 

[biturbo19]

Benning's goal is to nail the high picks and try to get a player or two out of every draft. That's actually a common measure of draft success. What you're trying to do is to project the player. Every scout will tell you that basically once you get to the 2nd round you're dealing with flawed prospects or prospects having a weaknesses or weaknesses that if not improved upon can and will prevent them from making the NHL. I don't agree with the idea that you should only pick players with top 6 upside or top 4 upside. I also think that fans try to look at offensive production and perhaps some scouting reports and try to project a player. The Blackhawks drafted Andrew Shaw as a 20 year old. As an overager, he put up 22 goals and 54 points. Using your arguments, you wouldn't be happy with Benning picking Andrew Shaw right?



Virtanen as a floor pick? You don't know what you're talking about. Every draft guide I have read considered Virtanen to have the best combination of size, speed, and skills. There are many who believe that if Virtanen had elite hockey IQ he would be the clearcut #1 overall pick. Guys like Nylander and Ehlers had first line upside but not elite production upside. Virtanen may not ultimately produce as many points as those guys but when you factor in his powerforward potential, there are many scouts who put his upside higher. Craig Button had Virtanen ranked 43rd on his list, but yet he said this about Virtanen: "He could be that grand slam player with enormous upside that teams are looking to draft." Mckenzie rankings had Virtanen ahead of Nylander and Ehlers.

Again, I don't think you get the idea of how scouting works. Scouts try to project a player. If there's a guy with top 6 potential but scouts think there is slim chance he will be a top 6 player in the NHL let alone an NHL player then why does this player make for a better pick than a player that scouts think can develop into an NHL player albeit as a 3rd line player. With high first round picks it makes sense to draft a player with the higher upside because presumably there is a good chance that that player can play in the NHL. But when you're dealing with later picks, it's not wrong to favour players you project to develop into NHL players over a player who has a higher upside IF he makes it but you don't think he will make it. If our scouts thought this way, we wouldn't have drafted Horvat. We would have drafted Nichushkin or Domi because those guys had supposedly higher upside.

I rather have an NHL 3rd or 4th line player than an AHL all star. I also think you are wrong about Benning's picks having low upside. Lockwood projects as a 3rd line player now but he has elite speed and soft hands. He happened to have played really well in tournaments.

I think you know nothing of Stukel. The scouting reports I read says he's a skilled forward with good puck skills, shot, skating, and offensive hockey IQ. He went from 5 goals to 36 and was near point per game after the trade. Totals that actually happen to be better than what Virtanen put up as a 19 year old.

McKenzie I can agree is not an offensive player. But seriously. One of the last picks in the 7th round. I don't mind if the Canucks favoured odds of making it to the NHL vs "ultimate upside" in the sense of if that player makes it the line or pairing he is likely to play.

Great post. Totally agree with this, and i think it's stuff that often gets overlooked from the ol' armchair with no chips on the table.

 

[RobertKron]

Benning's goal is to nail the high picks and try to get a player or two out of every draft. That's actually a common measure of draft success. What you're trying to do is to project the player. Every scout will tell you that basically once you get to the 2nd round you're dealing with flawed prospects or prospects having a weaknesses or weaknesses that if not improved upon can and will prevent them from making the NHL. I don't agree with the idea that you should only pick players with top 6 upside or top 4 upside. I also think that fans try to look at offensive production and perhaps some scouting reports and try to project a player. The Blackhawks drafted Andrew Shaw as a 20 year old. As an overager, he put up 22 goals and 54 points. Using your arguments, you wouldn't be happy with Benning picking Andrew Shaw right?

As an aside, Shaw was drafted after his 19yo season. He turned 20 about a month after the draft. That season, he took a step forward, showed well in a championship winning playoff run, won the OHL's hardest working player award, and led the memorial cup tournament in scoring. You've really played down his 2010-11 season. He was kind of a no brainer to have a team take a flyer on him.

 

[F A N]

As an aside, Shaw was drafted after his 19yo season. He turned 20 about a month after the draft. That season, he took a step forward, showed well in a championship winning playoff run, won the OHL's hardest working player award, and led the memorial cup tournament in scoring. You've really played down his 2010-11 season. He was kind of a no brainer to have a team take a flyer on him.

True but Shaw was bypassed in 2 drafts. I'm not playing down his season at all. My point is that Canafan would look at that as marginal numbers for a draft +2 year season. For example, he called Stukel a low ceiling pick when he scored 36 goals in his draft + 1 year year as an "18 year old." The guy went from 5 to 36 goals. I would say that is a step forward too no?

 

[biturbo19]

Thanks for sharing your comments on Lockwood.

Was a bit disappointed we didn't go Abramov but seeing the video and your comments, my hopes are up again. Fingers crossed indeed.

I really like Abramov as well, but i think you also have to admit that there are issues there.

With a very small Russian kid that has some super slick offensive skills...it's really enticing in terms of "upside" for sure. But you also have to weigh that against the lower-end of projections, and the realities of a small skilled Russian kid with a ton of bad habits to break.

Abramov is very much a boom or complete bust type prospect. If he doesn't make it as a good Top-6 forward, he will not be an NHLer. Period. The skillset and traits are not there to be effective in "bottom-6 minutes" at the NHL level - he'll always be a guy who needs to handle the puck a ton, offensive zone time, skilled linemates, PP minutes, etc. Yet he has a lot of things to address in his game before he's an NHL Top-6 forward. There's absolutely no guarantee that a guy like Abramov is going to stick around "in the system" in North America for a lot of years if that's how long it takes to build up his game to that point (assuming it's even translatable at all). There's always an "out", where a player like that could go back and become a KHL star if the NHL dream isn't materializing quickly enough.

So much of that comes down to the elements we as fans and hobbyist scouts are not privy to. The interviews. The in person stuff. The human element.

Whereas with a prospect like Lockwood...he's a guy you're going to get into your system with a pretty high degree of certainty. He's going to stick it out in North America - a couple years in college, a couple years in the AHL if that's what it takes. And he's a guy who even if the skill doesn't blossom into an NHL Top-6 Forward...he plays the sort of game where he can be effective and impactful without a cent of PP time and without the premium offensive minutes and linemates. There's "value" in that.

Despite our lack of picks...the reality doesn't change. What you want in a 3rd round pick is...a legitimate, contributing NHL player. You can hope for more, but just getting a great high-energy 3rd liner with some skill out of a 3rd round pick is a good outcome by the numbers. If you get that, you're doing alright.

A solid on-base is useful. Swing and a miss on that home-run ball for a strike doesn't help much at all. Something to always keep in mind imo.

 

[VanJack]

There's no denying the kind has wheels....gifted skater who uses his edges well...my only quibble is that Bitten is a centre and Lockwood a winger, and centres are always more valuable....but if he can do as well as Gaudette did in his first year in the NCAA the Canucks might have something.

 

[jeromemorrow]

I really like Abramov as well, but i think you also have to admit that there are issues there.

With a very small Russian kid that has some super slick offensive skills...it's really enticing in terms of "upside" for sure. But you also have to weigh that against the lower-end of projections, and the realities of a small skilled Russian kid with a ton of bad habits to break.

Abramov is very much a boom or complete bust type prospect. If he doesn't make it as a good Top-6 forward, he will not be an NHLer. Period. The skillset and traits are not there to be effective in "bottom-6 minutes" at the NHL level - he'll always be a guy who needs to handle the puck a ton, offensive zone time, skilled linemates, PP minutes, etc. Yet he has a lot of things to address in his game before he's an NHL Top-6 forward. There's absolutely no guarantee that a guy like Abramov is going to stick around "in the system" in North America for a lot of years if that's how long it takes to build up his game to that point (assuming it's even translatable at all). There's always an "out", where a player like that could go back and become a KHL star if the NHL dream isn't materializing quickly enough.

So much of that comes down to the elements we as fans and hobbyist scouts are not privy to. The interviews. The in person stuff. The human element.

Whereas with a prospect like Lockwood...he's a guy you're going to get into your system with a pretty high degree of certainty. He's going to stick it out in North America - a couple years in college, a couple years in the AHL if that's what it takes. And he's a guy who even if the skill doesn't blossom into an NHL Top-6 Forward...he plays the sort of game where he can be effective and impactful without a cent of PP time and without the premium offensive minutes and linemates. There's "value" in that.

Despite our lack of picks...the reality doesn't change. What you want in a 3rd round pick is...a legitimate, contributing NHL player. You can hope for more, but just getting a great high-energy 3rd liner with some skill out of a 3rd round pick is a good outcome by the numbers. If you get that, you're doing alright.

A solid on-base is useful. Swing and a miss on that home-run ball for a strike doesn't help much at all. Something to always keep in mind imo.

That's true. You're right about the boom or bust factor for Abramov. The more I look at CBJ's draft (Dubois, Peeke, Abramov)... Those were the guys I kinda wish Canucks got.. haha... but that's the price of doing business as Canuck pundits have been saying of late.

It's true though for Abramov.. It'll be hard to force skilled guys to play a game that doesn't necessarily translate to the pro game. I guess that's why Jensen and Shinkaruk are gone too.

Anyways back to Lockwood.. I really liked how Lockwood was appreciative of the Canucks reaching for him (even when he was supposed to be drafted in 3rd/4th round) in his interview with TSN1040. Seems like a good character guy. His dad played for UMich as well so that's pretty cool. Time will tell.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

Despite our lack of picks...the reality doesn't change. What you want in a 3rd round pick is...a legitimate, contributing NHL player. You can hope for more, but just getting a great high-energy 3rd liner with some skill out of a 3rd round pick is a good outcome by the numbers. If you get that, you're doing alright.

A solid on-base is useful. Swing and a miss on that home-run ball for a strike doesn't help much at all. Something to always keep in mind imo.

This is bang on.

With limited picks,you need to draft players with high floors to keep your organization stocked with quality prospects and hope a few of them exceed that floor enough to become important pieces of your NHL team.

If you have a bunch of extra picks,which is another topic altogether,then you can afford to take some home run swings on players like Abramov.
If you fill your draft with high risk players like him,there's a good chance you get nothing in the end and that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[F A N]

The chances are Lockwood is going to be in college for 3 years. Maybe spend a year or two in the AHL before he's truly ready to crack the roster. That's why it's so important to not come up empty in an NHL draft. There is a lot of development time that goes into these kids. And with waivers, a prospect doesn't have much time to prove himself.

 

[ulvvf]

This is bang on.

With limited picks,you need to draft players with high floors to keep your organization stocked with quality prospects and hope a few of them exceed that floor enough to become important pieces of your NHL team.

If you have a bunch of extra picks,which is another topic altogether,then you can afford to take some home run swings on players like Abramov.
If you fill your draft with high risk players like him,there's a good chance you get nothing in the end and that's a recipe for disaster.

You can probably get solid but not elite kind of player fairly easy through trades and free agents etc. But it is harder to get star players that way. Star players is what you get trough the draft. But sure maybe not only pick smallish longshoots.

 

[F A N]

You can probably get solid but not elite kind of player fairly easy through trades and free agents etc. But it is harder to get star players that way. Star players is what you get trough the draft. But sure maybe not only pick smallish longshoots.

If it's that easy Gillis wouldn't have had such trouble building a 4th line capable of taking a regular shift I'm the playoffs. Good young players are hard to come by whether they are good 2nd line players or good 3Rd or 4th line players.