Looking back on 1st rounders, do you take the consensus picks or what we have?

Which set of 1st round picks would you prefer?


  • Total voters
    95

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
25,983
15,854
Interesting hypothetical. I won't vote but the Virtanen and Juolevi picks were brutal. Set us back a couple years. I think you have to judge each pick individually and do away with this basket stuff.
Funny thing is though...If the 'Consensus' and the 'Reality' picks were reversed..you would vote...Unfortunately,this thread does not fit your (or the other negs) narrative,thats why they're all abstaining...It clearly demonstrates that Bennings 1st round picks are better than the consensus.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
It's quality vs. quantity for me. If Pettersson continues at this rate and Boeser regains his form, I'd take quality. If Boeser is no longer the same player (still optimistic he's fine), I'd probably lean towards the side with more good players.

That said, I don't agree with this idea of evaluating drafting based solely on outcome. No one can be expected to predict the future with certainty, but they can be expected to make reasonable and defensible decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pip

bbud

Registered User
Sep 10, 2008
10,289
3,096
BC
Well it's a chance to go back let's go back to 78 or 79 when Indianappolis wanted to sell us Gretzky forget which GM but Skalbania was in auction mode knowing wha was broke and offered him to the Canucks for less than 200g after that let's redo every draft lol.
We are where we are .
 

Ainec

Panetta was not racist
Jun 20, 2009
21,784
6,429
funny how pastrnak was mentioned

would've picked him over mccann until the WJC
 

604

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
7,279
1,486
I've done this before...the Canucks drafting did better than I expected several years ago (stretching back to Kesler to Schroeder) than I had thought then as well.
 

beachcomber

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
1,310
516
Yes, apart from the direct quote from Benning.

This one:

“I spent a lot of time of time working on that (trade) and I guess Boston felt they were getting a better deal from L.A.,” said Canucks general manager Jim Benning.

By this quote you assume that Benning offered up a number one pick? This is how these HF urban legends begin.lol.
 

Bojack Horvatman

IAMGROOT
Jun 15, 2016
4,037
7,093
This one:

“I spent a lot of time of time working on that (trade) and I guess Boston felt they were getting a better deal from L.A.,” said Canucks general manager Jim Benning.

By this quote you assume that Benning offered up a number one pick? This is how these HF urban legends begin.lol.

Boston would have the same asking price from the Canucks as L..A. This was during a time when Benning traded away multiple picks for (what he thought were) win-now pieces. So acquiring Lucic is a move consistent with his strategy at the time. Remember, he gave up high seconds for worse players.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
This one:

“I spent a lot of time of time working on that (trade) and I guess Boston felt they were getting a better deal from L.A.,” said Canucks general manager Jim Benning.

By this quote you assume that Benning offered up a number one pick? This is how these HF urban legends begin.lol.

What do you suppose he offered? A bag of peanut M&M's and a Jim sandlak rookie card?
 

DollarAndADream

Registered User
Feb 27, 2012
159
46
It's hard to say at this point what is better. Obviously we like Boeser/Pettersson > Merkley/Glass at this point, but it's a heavy Canucks bias. We found gold in Boeser and Pettersson. I think those are some good payoffs for missing out on Tkatchuk and Nylander.
 

Frankie Blueberries

Allergic to draft picks
Jan 27, 2016
9,094
10,545
This one:

“I spent a lot of time of time working on that (trade) and I guess Boston felt they were getting a better deal from L.A.,” said Canucks general manager Jim Benning.

By this quote you assume that Benning offered up a number one pick? This is how these HF urban legends begin.lol.

It probably included someone like McCann, since he was traded shortly thereafter. He'd hold similar value to LA's 1st round pick at the time of the trade.
 

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,080
4,325
chilliwacki
Only thing is..is that Pettersson wasnt ranked 5th..(everybody here had him rated 9th)...Vilardi,Glass and Mittelstadt were rated higher...Juolevi was rated #7 by the overall consensus,and #6 by Bob McK (TSN)..Yet it was a total stretch in picking him?..You have pretty selective thinking.

Fair enough. And I voted by the way, for the Benning picks. Juolevi was clearly a drop off after Tkachuk, if they didn't like him, they should have traded down. time will tell if this was a good pick. Weren't V G M and P all considered to be about the same ranking?
 

stampedingviking

Registered User
Jul 2, 2013
4,217
2,377
Basingstoke, England
It's quality vs. quantity for me. If Pettersson continues at this rate and Boeser regains his form, I'd take quality. If Boeser is no longer the same player (still optimistic he's fine), I'd probably lean towards the side with more good players.

That said, I don't agree with this idea of evaluating drafting based solely on outcome. No one can be expected to predict the future with certainty, but they can be expected to make reasonable and defensible decisions.
So how are you going to evaluate then? Draw straws?
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
So how are you going to evaluate then? Draw straws?
I don't think that definitive proof of drafting ability exists, and I mostly base my feelings of the job done on whether or not their assessments/reasoning/choices seem shrewd, lucky, or unlucky, with the benefit of hindsight. That said, consistently impressive or unimpressive results over a prolonged period of time can be pretty telling and difficult to argue with, because it's unlikely for good or bad luck to account for that.

With the current group, it's kind of all over the map at the moment. Virtanen and Juolevi were drafted based on pretty questionable reasoning, IMO-- Even if they happened to turn out great, I'd find the decision questionable and the outcome lucky. Pettersson and Hughes were drafted based on sensible reasoning, IMO-- Even if they happened to bust or ran into career-ending injuries, I'd find the decision worthy of support and the outcome unlucky.

I'm unaware of the conditions of the Boeser pick, but if hypothetically his career falls off a cliff because of the back injury, I'm certainly not going to hold it against the choice to draft him. That'd be pretty stupid.

It's like judging the abilities of a poker player based solely on how much they win after a few outings, rather than their actual strategy. You might expect their winnings to reflect their abilities long term, but to evaluate their winnings on a game by game basis and point to that as a direct measure of their skill is foolish.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->