So You Think You Can Draft 2017

[PG Canuck]

I am only going to consider players picked after ours for my list as we do that all the time with picks, maybe that's how it already works I don't know.

5 - Elias Pettersson
33 - Aleksi Heponiemi
55 - Joni Ikonen
64 - Michael DiPietro
95 - Scott Reedy
135 - Sebastian Aho
181 - Alexander Chmelevski
188 - Ben Jones

Other players I really wanted:
Erik Brannstrom
Denis Smirnov
Igor Shvyryov

Pretty good draft.

Pettersson is a stud

Heponiemi is progressing really well and looks to be a future stud for FLA

Ikonen got unfortunate with injuries but came back and showed well - huge year for him upcoming

DiPietro is doing good, liked the pick

Reedy has been very meh for University of Minnesota. My worst pick of the bunch.

Aho is killing the AHL as a dman. He got passed over way too much and he’s showing why.

Chmelevski has a good junior career and is heading to the AHL next year - still another year or two to see where he’s at

Jones - see above

3/8 look like solid future players, and that’s typically an outstanding draft. 2/8 look like sure fire top end NHLers (Petey/Hepo) and even that usually seems like a win.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Since we seem to be revisiting just the 2016 draft for reasons, why not revisit the 2017 draft where our first five (!) draft picks include a superstar, and four others still looking like potential NHLers.

Also interesting to see how Pettersson is discussed as a lucky BPA gimme for Benning these days, and yet this thread seems to indicate he wasn't such an obvious pick...

 

[Lindgren]

Since we seem to be revisiting just the 2016 draft for reasons, why not revisit the 2017 draft where our first five (!) draft picks include a superstar, and four others still looking like potential NHLers.

Also interesting to see how Pettersson is discussed as a lucky BPA gimme for Benning these days, and yet this thread seems to indicate he wasn't such an obvious pick...

How many of the four after Pettersson do you think will become regular NHLers? I'm guessing one, which would be a decent result.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

How many of the four after Pettersson do you think will become regular NHLers? I'm guessing one, which would be a decent result.

I'm pretty optimistic about this group, but for the sake of realism I'm very interested in well-argued and informed perspectives (not "LOL homer") that dampen my enthusiasm.

In terms of NHL probability, I'd rank them:

1. 65% Michael DiPietro: I think his rookie AHL season really flew under the radar due to Demko being the goalie of the future in Vancouver. Everything about this player apart from his size is promising.

2. 60% Jack Rathbone: The successes of Marino and Fox reflect favourably upon Jack, and with his skating prowess and puck moving ability, he seems to be designed for the new NHL. Of course I'd like to see how he defends against professional players first, and I think some time in the AHL is in the cards.

3. 50% Kole Lind: Here is where my bias probably starts to come out, as I've liked Lind's on-ice personality from back in his days in Kelowna. He's a real competitor who will play any role for a team, so I do think he could make it as a pugnacious bottom-6 player if he fills out his frame a little more. His slow, but steady development in the AHL also seems to have mirrored his development in the WHL.

4. 20% Jonah Gadjovich: I know his skating improved this season, but I still am not sure he can keep up with the NHL game. We'll see. At least he bounced back a little from a disappointing first AHL campaign, and his useful net-front skills surfaced again.

So I see us getting 2 players from this group, and 3 players total from the draft (including a superstar), which is pretty good.

 

[Lindgren]

I'm pretty optimistic about this group, but for the sake of realism I'm very interested in well-argued and informed perspectives (not "LOL homer") that dampen my enthusiasm.

In terms of NHL probability, I'd rank them:

1. 65% Michael DiPietro: I think his rookie AHL season really flew under the radar due to Demko being the goalie of the future in Vancouver. Everything about this player apart from his size is promising.

2. 60% Jack Rathbone: The successes of Marino and Fox reflect favourably upon Jack, and with his skating prowess and puck moving ability, he seems to be designed for the new NHL. Of course I'd like to see how he defends against professional players first, and I think some time in the AHL is in the cards.

3. 50% Kole Lind: Here is where my bias probably starts to come out, as I've liked Lind's on-ice personality from back in his days in Kelowna. He's a real competitor who will play any role for a team, so I do think he could make it as a pugnacious bottom-6 player if he fills out his frame a little more. His slow, but steady development in the AHL also seems to have mirrored his development in the WHL.

4. 20% Jonah Gadjovich: I know his skating improved this season, but I still am not sure he can keep up with the NHL game. We'll see. At least he bounced back a little from a disappointing first AHL campaign, and his useful net-front skills surfaced again.

So I see us getting 2 players from this group, and 3 players total from the draft (including a superstar), which is pretty good.

Two players from that group would be excellent.

My take, in your order:

DiPietro: 40%

Rathbone: 50%

Lind: 25%

Gadjovich: 5%

I'm just going by what I've read and the stats.

 

[Peter10]

Since we seem to be revisiting just the 2016 draft for reasons, why not revisit the 2017 draft where our first five (!) draft picks include a superstar, and four others still looking like potential NHLers.

Also interesting to see how Pettersson is discussed as a lucky BPA gimme for Benning these days, and yet this thread seems to indicate he wasn't such an obvious pick...

Who said it was an obvious pick? Whst people are arguing is that he was a valid choice at and from a reach as certain posters want to make us believe. In fact a lot of posters here wanted Pettersson and many of those who went eitj Gladd or Vilardi mentioned that EP was close.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Who said it was an obvious pick? Whst people are arguing is that he was a valid choice at and from a reach as certain posters want to make us believe. In fact a lot of posters here wanted Pettersson and many of those who went eitj Gladd or Vilardi mentioned that EP was close.

I'm not going to hunt down a bunch of posts, but it has been a general sentiment around here that Benning lucked out by Pettersson and Hughes "falling" to the Canucks. Which is total revisionist history.

One example post which had a half dozen likes:

Even a busted clock can be right twice a day. Benning is still a buffoon and a GM I have zero faith in. He's lucky Pettersson fell to us because that player alone almost single highhandedly saved his job.

Just a pervasive rhetoric framing every good thing that Benning has done as "lucky"--happening now with the brilliant and ballsy Miller trade--and every bad thing that Benning has done as hard evidence of his supposed incompetence.

 

[rypper]

I don't think anyone expected Hughes to make it past Detroit, least of all Jim Benning and John Weisbrod.

 

[Peter10]

I'm not going to hunt down a bunch of posts, but it has been a general sentiment around here that Benning lucked out by Pettersson and Hughes "falling" to the Canucks. Which is total revisionist history.

One example post which had a half dozen likes:



Just a pervasive rhetoric framing every good thing that Benning has done as "lucky"--happening now with the brilliant and ballsy Miller trade--and every bad thing that Benning has done as hard evidence of his supposed incompetence.

It would certainly help if you could link the quote directly but I guess that is too complicated.

The comments about "lucked out" probably refer to the fact that teams do still judge the prospects mainly by the eye-test. Going strictly by the stats Pettersson would have been a contender for the no.1 pick considering he put insanly good numbers in Allsvenska that were so good that there werent even compareables for it. He was lacking in size/strength hence many werent convinced he could keep this up in the NHL.
The one thing were Benning lucked out was by being overruled by Linden who sort of saved his job twice by overruling him and also by lobbying for his extension in early 2018.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

I still remember a certain poster completely flipped out because we skipped on Vilardi
He was 1000% sure that Vilardi is the next all star

 

[datboichoi]

I still remember a certain poster completely flipped out because we skipped on Vilardi
He was 1000% sure that Vilardi is the next all star

Vilardi has his career derailed by back injuries, if he ever gets healthy he’s going to be a star.

 

[rypper]

Vilardi put up 7 points in 10 games with the kings before the season halted due to covid.

It's not like he's a former 5th overall pick approaching his draft +5 season with zero NHL games played or something.

 

[Peter10]

I still remember a certain poster completely flipped out because we skipped on Vilardi
He was 1000% sure that Vilardi is the next all star

Unlike NHL teams, no one here knew about his serious back issues. With that information, I doubt that the reaction would have been similar.

 

[Bubbles]

3 years is a bit early to evaluate a draft. The usual time is 5 years or so.

BTW, I was definitely pro-Vilardi. I have eaten my hat in response (tasty with a bit of pepper and olive oil)

 

[VanillaCoke]

Vilardi is still an excellent top prospect. The time off is only going to help him be 100%, which he seemed to be this season before the break.

EP is definitely the best C of 5hat draft but vilardi is definitely still in the mix to be #2..

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm not going to hunt down a bunch of posts, but it has been a general sentiment around here that Benning lucked out by Pettersson and Hughes "falling" to the Canucks. Which is total revisionist history.

One example post which had a half dozen likes:



Just a pervasive rhetoric framing every good thing that Benning has done as "lucky"--happening now with the brilliant and ballsy Miller trade--and every bad thing that Benning has done as hard evidence of his supposed incompetence.

It’s because most evidence surrounding said occurrences is to the contrary, or just not attributable to Benning.

All non-Juolevi 1sts are owed to Brackett (IMac). The Miller trade followed the 2nd worst record over a 4 year span (NHL stats). And so, what he takes credit for isn’t his doing, and when it is, it’s a trade that goes against all information at the time.

Then, we have a superb work with the cap and his management of assets. Clear failings with him at the wheel. And so, what has he done, himself, that warrants praise? Pearson? Miller? Alright. What else? This is what you have chosen to defend... Good luck.

Hope that was clear enough?

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

It’s because most evidence surrounding said occurrences is to the contrary, or just not attributable to Benning.

All non-Juolevi 1sts are owed to Brackett (IMac). The Miller trade followed the 2nd worst record over a 4 year span (NHL stats). And so, what he takes credit for isn’t his doing, and when it is, it’s a trade that goes against all information at the time.

Then, we have a superb work with the cap and his management of assets. Clear failings with him at the wheel. And so, what has he done, himself, that warrants praise? Pearson? Miller? Alright. What else? This is what you have chosen to defend... Good luck.

Hope that was clear enough?

Brackett was promoted out of obscurity by Benning. Arguing that Benning somehow deserves less credit for draft picks because his head of scouting recommended them is nonsensical and juvenile. At the end of the day, Benning is responsible for the picks no matter what.

What if Brackett picked a series of duds? Would you then be defending Benning as not responsible, as it "not being his doing," it was only his head of scouting? Of course not, because your arguments are severely biased. It's like why you're not posting in the Vey trade thread arguing it actually wasn't that bad of a deal, because L.A.'s drafted player didn't turn out.

I won't even get into the Miller trade with you, because your points are even more inane. As if a team's past record dictates that they shouldn't trade for very good players. Guess what, Benning and co. have much better "information" on the state of their team than you do, as they proved with the Miller trade.

The Canucks have one of the brighter futures in the league, according to a lot of non-HF Van posters and media members; that's an opinion that doesn't take elaborate conspiracy theory points or endless rhetoric to defend.

 

[m9]

Edit - not relevant to this thread topic.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Just give all the credit and blame to Benning.

They've generally done well at the draft and Miller was a great addition.

They've been awful on the ice for 5 years. They have a limited prospect pool going forward which will be weakened further by recent trades. They are now in a cap mess.

At the end of the day, is anything else really relevant?

Their record in Bennings first season clearly shows that they were not 'awful'...same goes for this season...There was definite growth this season.

They were awful for three seasons...(as teams usually are when transitioning from an older core to a brand new one)...

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Their record in Bennings first season clearly shows that they were not 'awful'...same goes for this season...There was definite growth this season.

They were awful for three seasons...(as teams usually are when transitioning from an older core to a brand new one)...

They were awful for four seasons under Benning, and five if you include Gillis' last year in 2013-2014. (just relevant for receiving high draft picks in helping the rebuild).

2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019

Unless a bottom 10 finish isn't considered awful to you.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

They were awful for four seasons under Benning, and five if you include Gillis' last year in 2013-2014. (just relevant for receiving high draft picks in helping the rebuild).

2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019

Unless a bottom 10 finish isn't considered awful to you.

Fair enough.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Brackett was promoted out of obscurity by Benning. Arguing that Benning somehow deserves less credit for draft picks because his head of scouting recommended them is nonsensical and juvenile. At the end of the day, Benning is responsible for the picks no matter what.

What if Brackett picked a series of duds? Would you then be defending Benning as not responsible, as it "not being his doing," it was only his head of scouting? Of course not, because your arguments are severely biased. It's like why you're not posting in the Vey trade thread arguing it actually wasn't that bad of a deal, because L.A.'s drafted player didn't turn out.

I won't even get into the Miller trade with you, because your points are even more inane. As if a team's past record dictates that they shouldn't trade for very good players. Guess what, Benning and co. have much better "information" on the state of their team than you do, as they proved with the Miller trade.

The Canucks have one of the brighter futures in the league, according to a lot of non-HF Van posters and media members; that's an opinion that doesn't take elaborate conspiracy theory points or endless rhetoric to defend.

Benning is responsible for the picks, but he didn’t make them. It wasn’t his acumen that led to VAN’s drafting turn around. That is a very clear and concise point made by Iain MacIntyre.

If Brackett had picked poorly, then Benning would still be responsible. He’s still the GM, after all. However, it would be recognized that his impact was limited due to relying on poor advice. Much as it is/was with Gillis.

Of course there is bias. We are both biased. It comes down to who is making the better argument despite his bias? Hint: It’s not you.

What information did Benning have on the Eriksson signing, I wonder? I hope this indicates to you how stupid your particular argument is here? Special information does not justify ignoring a 4 year record.

Re: Bright Future: References media members when speaking about VAN’s bright future. Ignores media members when they point out the pick influence of Brackett or Benning. You were saying something about bias, weren’t you?

 

[Sneezy]

It would certainly help if you could link the quote directly but I guess that is too complicated.

The comments about "lucked out" probably refer to the fact that teams do still judge the prospects mainly by the eye-test. Going strictly by the stats Pettersson would have been a contender for the no.1 pick considering he put insanly good numbers in Allsvenska that were so good that there werent even compareables for it. He was lacking in size/strength hence many werent convinced he could keep this up in the NHL.
The one thing were Benning lucked out was by being overruled by Linden who sort of saved his job twice by overruling him and also by lobbying for his extension in early 2018.

There is not proof that Linden did this or are you going to link to the "unnamed" source articles by local reporters who are more interested in mouse clicks than the truth? Just curious because I see a lot of twitter links or no name reporter links as the proof and unless any of us were in the room we do not know what happened.

I will say that the benning haters really should be applauded for their daily posting all things anti-benning, it keeps them home and abiding by the COVID19 restrictions vs. going out and potentially infecting people. I mean how else can they post through out the day if they are working?

 

[Peter10]

There is not proof that Linden did this or are you going to link to the "unnamed" source articles by local reporters who are more interested in mouse clicks than the truth? Just curious because I see a lot of twitter links or no name reporter links as the proof and unless any of us were in the room we do not know what happened.

I will say that the benning haters really should be applauded for their daily posting all things anti-benning, it keeps them home and abiding by the COVID19 restrictions vs. going out and potentially infecting people. I mean how else can they post through out the day if they are working?

How do you judge which article is just for mouse clicks and which are based on reality?

Btw, Linden was IN the room.

 

[Hansen]

5 - Elias Pettersson
33 - Nic Hague
55 - Jonah Gadjovich
64 - Michael DiPietro
95 - Noel Hoefenmayer
135 - Denis Smirnov (HM Jarret Tyszka)
181 - Sasha Chmelevski
188 - Jordy Bellerive

God I wish we had taken Hague over Lind, should have been a no brainer