Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign D - Brogan Rafferty

[elitepete]

We have our six dmen andFatenburg, then Brisebois and Suttner. Then we have Juolevi. And Tryamkin probably coming back. woo is not far away. And Rathbone is looking great. Honestly I think we’re going to have a log jam in the D position for a while .

We have noone that projects to be top pairing other than hughes

 

[4Twenty]

I think the easiest way is to use premium picks to draft Dmen. Take Nashville who is very good at drafting and developing Dmen. Hamhuis, Suter, Klein, Weber, Josi, Ellis, Jones, Fabbro, and Girard were all top 50 picks. Take out Weber and they are all top 40 picks.

In the same span, the Canucks used top 50 picks on Allen, Koltsov, Bourdon, Ellington, Sauve, Juolevi, Woo, and Hughes. Allen, Bourdon, Juolevi, and Hughes being the only first round picks. If you include 3rd round picks, the Canucks have drafted a bunch of busts but also Edler and Connauton.

Statistically speaking you're more likely to be able to draft top 4 Dmen later in the draft than top 6 forwards. At the same time, if you don't use premium picks to draft Dmen, you have to acquire them other ways which can be difficult. The Blues won the Cup last year with a D corps made largely of guys picked in the first 3 rounds. Washington had some late round/undrafted guys but their main guys were former first round picks.

Using premium picks isn't the guarantee though, plenty of 1st round bust dmen around right now, hell, the Canucks had Gudbranson 3rd overall, Pouliot 8th overall, and Del Zotto 15th overall IIRC, with 5th overall Juolevi and 7th overall Hughes in the system, just last year and don't forget 18th overall Luca Sbisa. Just looking it up, but holy crap the 2008 draft provided some incredible defensive talents to the NHL. The leading point scoring defender (John Carlson) in the league right now was the 12th Dman taken in that 1st round, Canucks took Yann Sauve 3 picks after Roman Josi, two before Justin Schultz.

Nashville's strategy isn't about using premium picks either, it's about throwing as much as possible at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why I didn't like the Canucks decision to not draft a single defensman this past draft. You still have to pick the right guys, picking earlier and the more chances the better.

 

[F A N]

Using premium picks isn't the guarantee though, plenty of 1st round bust dmen around right now, hell, the Canucks had Gudbranson 3rd overall, Pouliot 8th overall, and Del Zotto 15th overall IIRC, with 5th overall Juolevi and 7th overall Hughes in the system, just last year and don't forget 18th overall Luca Sbisa. Just looking it up, but holy crap the 2008 draft provided some incredible defensive talents to the NHL. The leading point scoring defender (John Carlson) in the league right now was the 12th Dman taken in that 1st round, Canucks took Yann Sauve 3 picks after Roman Josi, two before Justin Schultz.

Nashville's strategy isn't about using premium picks either, it's about throwing as much as possible at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why I didn't like the Canucks decision to not draft a single defensman this past draft. You still have to pick the right guys, picking earlier and the more chances the better.

The same can be said for drafting forwards. But we're not discussing whether the draft is a crapshoot.

There were many years where the "need" was not on D yet Nashville drafted another defenseman (some years because the Dman was the best asset available).

Anyways, what I'm saying isn't anything novel. I think the best way to acquire a top 4 Dman is by drafting and developing one. Your odds of drafting and developing one does increase by using premium picks to draft one. I think you're more likely to draft and develop a top 4 Dman by using a top 60 pick every other year on a Dman than to use your 4th, 5th, and 6th round pick every year on a Dman.

 

[4Twenty]

The same can be said for drafting forwards. But we're not discussing whether the draft is a crapshoot.

There were many years where the "need" was not on D yet Nashville drafted another defenseman (some years because the Dman was the best asset available).

Anyways, what I'm saying isn't anything novel. I think the best way to acquire a top 4 Dman is by drafting and developing one. Your odds of drafting and developing one does increase by using premium picks to draft one. I think you're more likely to draft and develop a top 4 Dman by using a top 60 pick every other year on a Dman than to use your 4th, 5th, and 6th round pick every year on a Dman.

Yes, nothing novel, and pretty much common sense. The odds of getting a contributing NHL player goes up the higher the player is selected and goes down the lower.

You're correct that "need" shouldn't drive any draft pick.

 

[F A N]

Yes, nothing novel, and pretty much common sense. The odds of getting a contributing NHL player goes up the higher the player is selected and goes down the lower.

You're correct that "need" shouldn't drive any draft pick.

The other factor is that the Canucks have historically not been a good drafting team. Drafting a top 4 Dman outside of the top 3 rounds has not happened often. Basically, from 1990, the only Dmen the Canucks drafted outside of the first 3 rounds that were/are NHL Dmen consist of Aucoin, Sopel, Bieksa, Hutton, and Forsling. In almost 30 years those are the NHL Dmen we drafted outside of the top 3 rounds.

 

[M2Beezy]

Still gonna have to do something with that name

 

[F A N]

Still gonna have to do something with that name

Nah. If you google his name, Brogan Rafferty, the hockey player, shows up first.

 

[VanJack]

Nah. If you google his name, Brogan Rafferty, the hockey player, shows up first.

It's definitely a candidate for the 'all name' team. I'm breathlessly awaiting for the defensive tandem of Brogan Rafferty and Jack Rathbone.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Nashville's strategy isn't about using premium picks either, it's about throwing as much as possible at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why I didn't like the Canucks decision to not draft a single defensman this past draft. You still have to pick the right guys, picking earlier and the more chances the better.

The Canucks have drafted a slightly higher proportion of defensemen than the mean from 2014 onward. Can you explain why you believe that the proportion of defensemen taken in one draft, which is volatile and largely determined by individual scouting decisions rather than overall positional strategy, is more important than that?

 

[VanJack]

Of all the d-men the Canucks have drafted or signed, is there a legit top-four blueliner in the group? Other than Hughes, not likely. Although I guess Tryamkin is a remote possibility. Obviously Juolevi with his draft pedigree was supposed to be that player, but that ship has probably sailed.

So we're probably looking at a few more season where Edler and Tanev are still at the top of the depth chart by default.

 

[Steveorama]

Of all the d-men the Canucks have drafted or signed, is there a legit top-four blueliner in the group? Other than Hughes, not likely. Although I guess Tryamkin is a remote possibility. Obviously Juolevi with his draft pedigree was supposed to be that player, but that ship has probably sailed.

So we're probably looking at a few more season where Edler and Tanev are still at the top of the depth chart by default.

The year before Bieksa or Tanev became regulars, was anybody projecting them as a top 4 dman in the league?
I am not saying Woo, Rathbone, Tryamkin, Joulevi, Rafferty, Teves, Brisebois and Utenan will all be top 4 dmen.
But it seems very unlikely that NONE of them will be.

 

[RobertKron]

The year before Bieksa or Tanev became regulars, was anybody projecting them as a top 4 dman in the league?
I am not saying Woo, Rathbone, Tryamkin, Joulevi, Rafferty, Teves, Brisebois and Utenan will all be top 4 dmen.
But it seems very unlikely that NONE of them will be.

Not speaking on these particular players, but why would that seem unlikely?

Also, just for what it's worth, Bieksa was a 40 point AHL rookie and then had 20 points in 23 AHL games before he became a regular NHLer. Tanev looked like a potential top-4 defensemen from basically the moment he played for the Canucks, which was like two or three years before he was a regular.

 

[krutovsdonut]

top four, sure. the outlook for top pair replacements is pretty bleak though.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Not speaking on these particular players, but why would that seem unlikely?

well, necessity is the mother of invention with dmen. we have job openings to fill. they are going to get auditions.

you could force tryamkin and brisebois into a top 4 role right now, keenan style. they might not make it but they are candidates for the experiment.

 

[RobertKron]

well, necessity is the mother of invention with dmen. we have job openings to fill. they are going to get auditions.

you could force tryamkin and brisebois into a top 4 role right now, keenan style. they might not make it but they are candidates for the experiment.

OP said "legit top-four blue liner." If your criteria is "well we had to dress someone!" why even bother entering the conversation?

Moreover, I'm speaking more to the idea that just because there's a bunch of guys, it's pretty silly to assume that someone will figure it out just because you may not have noticed that Tanev was really good before he was a fixture in the lineup. Those are different people who will have different careers.

 

[krutovsdonut]

OP said "legit top-four blue liner." If your criteria is "well we had to dress someone!" why even bother entering the conversation?

Moreover, I'm speaking more to the idea that just because there's a bunch of guys, it's pretty silly to assume that someone will figure it out just because you may not have noticed that Tanev was really good before he was a fixture in the lineup. Those are different people who will have different careers.

the chances of a prospect developing into a legit top 4 blueliner are better if they are in an organization that has openings for that. to put it in simple terms, there are some prospects who will knock the door down and demand top 4 deployment, and some prospects that will grow into the position if given a chance. there are also some prospects who will grow into that position if given a chance and extra attention by a skilled coach who needs a top 4 dman. if you already have top 4 dmen in their prime in an organization you will miss out developing some of those guys.

is that clear enough?

 

[RobertKron]

the chances of a prospect developing into a legit top 4 blueliner are better if they are in an organization that has openings for that. to put it in simple terms, there are some prospects who will knock the door down and demand top 4 deployment, and some prospects that will grow into the position if given a chance. there are also some prospects who will grow into that position if given a chance and extra attention by a skilled coach who needs a top 4 dman. if you already have top 4 dmen in their prime in an organization you will miss out developing some of those guys.

is that clear enough?

Every team has openings for that.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Every team has openings for that.

absolutely. every team offers exactly the same opportunity to all its players at all times. no player ever benefits from being in the right place at the right time to get a shot at ice time or coaching attention that unlocks their potential. it's a giant level playing field out there with no variables and all players will develop the same way no matter what their situation. possible openings on an nhl roster make no difference to a player's career trajectory and opportunities. agents and players pay no attention to such things when deciding where to sign because it is irrelevant.

or your argument is intentionally contrarian and disingenuous because it is pursuing an agenda other than a serious discussion of hockey.

pick whichever answer you like better and have a nice day.

 

[RobertKron]

Oh hey, KD is having their bimonthly tantrum where they yell at everyone who disagrees with them for having an agenda and turning the frogs gay and whatever else.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Oh hey, KD is having their bimonthly tantrum where they yell at everyone who disagrees with them for having an agenda and turning the frogs gay and whatever else.

well firstly, they're much more frequent that that. i already had one this week.

second, you seem to be protesting innocence here? did you honestly came to this discussion with an open heart and no agenda? it seemed like you were advancing obtuse arguments with me on purpose. possibly i misjudged the situation. let's recap my take:

-i gave a specific genuine reason i thought it unlikely all the candidates listed would fail to be top 4 dmen.

-you responded to suggest i had misunderstood the parameters of the discussion and that for some reason i was talking about playing guys in top four situations who didn't deserve it. not sure why you would think anyone would be discussing that. it seemed like a ridiculous strawman deliberate misinterpretation of what i said.

-even though i had reservations about your good faith, i gave you the benefit of the doubt, answering politely again and explaining in detail and substance a second time why i had the opinion i did.

-not having any real substantive answer, you gave another disingenuous glib answer.

-at that point, realizing you were never serious and were just wasting my time, this time i responded in kind and gave you the answer you deserved.

-now you are feigning innocence. that seems like a debating specialty of yours.

anyway, that's my interpretation of our discussions. was i wrong to interpret our interaction this way? help a brother our and show me the error of my ways. explain to me the good faith you brought to our interaction and i will apologize.

peace. out.

 

[Hodgy]

The Canucks have drafted a slightly higher proportion of defensemen than the mean from 2014 onward. Can you explain why you believe that the proportion of defensemen taken in one draft, which is volatile and largely determined by individual scouting decisions rather than overall positional strategy, is more important than that?

It kind of looks like you are equating a first round, top ten pick, with a seventh round pick. Please tell me your analysis isn't so obviously flawed. As you quite routinely claim about others, I assume that you are not this stupid and know that a top pick cannot be equate with a low pick, and so forth, so I am hoping you have a reasonable explanation.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It kind of looks like you are equating a first round, top ten pick, with a seventh round pick. Please tell me your analysis isn't so obviously flawed. As you quite routinely claim about others, I assume that you are not this stupid and know that a top pick cannot be equate with a low pick, and so forth, so I am hoping you have a reasonable explanation.

None of this has anything to do with what he said. He claimed to be unhappy with the Canucks' failure to use any picks in a particular draft on defensemen, a criticism which is belied by the fact that the team has generally drafted a disproportionately high number of defensemen.

Incidentally, they've used an even more disproportionate number of their top ten picks -- two out of four -- on defensemen.

 

[Hodgy]

None of this has anything to do with what he said. He claimed to be unhappy with the Canucks' failure to use any picks in a particular draft on defensemen, a criticism which is belied by the fact that the team has generally drafted a disproportionately high number of defensemen.

Incidentally, they've used an even more disproportionate number of their top ten picks -- two out of four -- on defensemen.

Presumably 420Canucks appreciates that quality of pick is relevant, and not just quantity. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. So while he may have been discussing quantity in the context of Nashville as an example, one cannot ignore the quality of picks they used on defense as well, especially when contrasting this with the Canucks.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Presumably 420Canucks appreciates that quality of pick is relevant, and not just quantity. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. So while he may have been discussing quantity in the context of Nashville as an example, one cannot ignore the quality of picks they used on defense as well, especially when contrasting this with the Canucks.

1. He explicitly said the opposite, that he believes in the value of throwing as many picks at the wall as possible and seeing what sticks, and;

2. To repeat myself, the Canucks have also used a disproportionate number of high picks -- 5 out of 16 picks in the first three rounds, half of all lottery picks, and a disproportionately high number of 1st round picks in general -- on defensemen. This exceeds the number and quality of picks Nashville has used on defensemen by any of the same criteria. You're wrong about each thing you're talking about in every way you can be wrong about it. Sorry, but I don't know what else to say.

 

[4Twenty]

The Canucks have drafted a slightly higher proportion of defensemen than the mean from 2014 onward. Can you explain why you believe that the proportion of defensemen taken in one draft, which is volatile and largely determined by individual scouting decisions rather than overall positional strategy, is more important than that?

I thought the tie could’ve gone to a dman at least once.

I don’t really see that they’ve used a disproportionate amount of picks on defenseman prior either.

In 6 drafts one defenseman was taken with a 2nd round pick (Woo), two were taken with 3rd’s (Tryamkin, Brisebois).

If they didn’t have defenseman close based on talent and not based on wanting to go heavy to forward so be it.

Do you think the system has enough talent on defense?