Prospect Info: Urho Vaakanainen

[00BW]

For those wondering, he was on 9 of 12, 1st round draft boards as you can see at this link.
2017 NHL Draft Rankings

No one had him at exactly 18 but The Draft Analyst was the closest at 17. Hockey Prospect and McKeen's had him the highest at 11 and 13 respectively while 3 considered him a 2nd round talent. Because that link only has 1st round rankings, I can't calculate all for average draft position but based on the 9 that do list him, the average is 23rd. So he was drafted about where he was expected to be if going by consensus of those 9.

 

[KrejciWinger]

You're joking, right? Last year was a fluke? Then explain how the Bs were so depleted on D the year before last that they had to ice Tommy Cross in the playoffs.
Injuries are a given. They are certainly not "a fluke".

That's also when we played Charlie McAvoy, who we realized was an NHL player. You clipped out the original argument, which was Urho Vaakanainen should be on this roster. And when injuries do occur, Zboril or Lauzon will never get a chance due to Grzelcyk's contract and Kampfer's experience. I do believe it's a bit much.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

For those wondering, he was on 9 of 12, 1st round draft boards as you can see at this link.
2017 NHL Draft Rankings

No one had him at exactly 18 but The Draft Analyst was the closest at 17. Hockey Prospect and McKeen's had him the highest at 11 and 13 respectively while 3 considered him a 2nd round talent. Because that link only has 1st round rankings, I can't calculate all for average draft position but based on the 9 that do list him, the average is 23rd. So he was drafted about where he was expected to be if going by consensus of those 9.

McKenzie had him at 22, Button at 31.

If the consensus/average was 23, and he was taken at 18, it means the B’s liked him better than the average scouting service.

I was replying to a poster that said he “fell” to the Bruins, which was not the case.

 

[rocketdan9]

McKenzie had him at 22, Button at 31.

If the consensus/average was 23, and he was taken at 18, it means the B’s liked him better than the average scouting service.

I was replying to a poster that said he “fell” to the Bruins, which was not the case.

Brannstrom, Valimaki, Liljegren all went just prior to Vaaka being chosen. While the 1st two are known as offensive Ds, Liljegren and Vaaka are similar ..... Even Liljegren being chosen a spot prior , meant the Leafs were the one who had to "make a decision". The teams that chose Brannstrom, Valimaki (if both were unavailble) also could have chosen Liljegren, Vaaka earlier.

Imo Vaaka was in the group of best 7 Ds. Teams/Scout theses days just value offensive minded/skilled Ds higher

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

this whole 'he was rated here by this other person' argument is such garbage anyhow. why is that other person considered right? how accurate is that other person?

drafting is a crap shoot for everyone.

I mean ask that other person who was better wayne gretzky or bobby orr. ask that other person who was better ray bourque or niklas lidstrom. ask that other person who was better cam neely or pavel bure. you might soon realize you don't agree with that other person very much about hockey analysis

if we cant agree about who is better after these guys finish 15-20 year careers how the hell can we agree when they are 18 year old kids? and other than yourself you will NEVER find ANYONE ELSE that will agree to you when you rank the top 100 players of all time

being ranked 15th or 31st in an amateur draft matters as much as throwing darts at a board. you hope to hell you get a lucky shot

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Brannstrom, Valimaki, Liljegren all went just prior to Vaaka being chosen. While the 1st two are known as offensive Ds, Liljegren and Vaaka are similar ..... Even Liljegren being chosen a spot prior , meant the Leafs were the one who had to "make a decision". The teams that chose Brannstrom, Valimaki (if both were unavailble) also could have chosen Liljegren, Vaaka earlier.

Imo Vaaka was in the group of best 7 Ds. Teams/Scout theses days just value offensive minded/skilled Ds higher

You lost me.

Based on my admittedly few viewings of Liljegren (AHL Finals) and his scouting reports, he and UV are nothing alike.

UV is a sound defensive d-man that possesses the skills necessary to contribute on the offensive end once he gets comfortable in the NHL. Liljegren is an offensive d-man that needs work on his defensive game. In the Calder games I watched it seemed as if he spent more time below the opposing goal line than he did the blue line.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

this whole 'he was rated here by this other person' argument is such garbage anyhow. why is that other person considered right? how accurate is that other person?

drafting is a crap shoot for everyone.

I mean ask that other person who was better wayne gretzky or bobby orr. ask that other person who was better ray bourque or niklas lidstrom. ask that other person who was better cam neely or pavel bure. you might soon realize you don't agree with that other person very much about hockey analysis

if we cant agree about who is better after these guys finish 15-20 year careers how the hell can we agree when they are 18 year old kids? and other than yourself you will NEVER find ANYONE ELSE that will agree to you when you rank the top 100 players of all time

being ranked 15th or 31st in an amateur draft matters as much as throwing darts at a board. you hope to hell you get a lucky shot

Mike,

You are completely missing the point (happens when you join the conversation halfway through).

I’m not attempting to rank UV in any way shape or form, or say who is better now. I am simply stating that UV was ranked by the majority of scouting services below where the B’s took him (18), and that he didn’t “fall” into the their lap.

 

[rocketdan9]

You lost me.

Based on my admittedly few viewings of Liljegren (AHL Finals) and his scouting reports, he and UV are nothing alike.

UV is a sound defensive d-man that possesses the skills necessary to contribute on the offensive end once he gets comfortable in the NHL. Liljegren is an offensive d-man that needs work on his defensive game. In the Calder games I watched it seemed as if he spent more time below the opposing goal line than he did the blue line.

Liljegren is a bit more offensive minded D but the finish/goal scoring is not there.... Good skater and his defensive game is decent imo. His offensive mindset perhaps blurs his focus on the defensive end

Are you stating the three teams prior (if the Ds they picked were not available) would have not picked Vaaka?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Liljegren is a bit more offensive minded D but the finish/goal scoring is not there.... Good skater and his defensive game is decent imo. His offensive mindset perhaps blurs his focus on the defensive end

Are you stating the three teams prior (if the Ds they picked were not available) would have not picked Vaaka?

I think I stated pretty clearly:

1) UV and Liljegren are not similar players.

2) Vaakaneinen was (on average) rated below 18 where the B’s took him.

I have zero idea what the draft boards of Vegas, Calgary, and Toronto looked like for the 2017 draft.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

Mike,

You are completely missing the point (happens when you join the conversation halfway through).

I’m not attempting to rank UV in any way shape or form, or say who is better now. I am simply stating that UV was ranked by the majority of scouting services below where the B’s took him (18), and that he didn’t “fall” into the their lap.

no, I understand your point I think I was responding more to the other side of this argument... the idea that a guy fell.

fell by whose judgement is my question? was the one that rated him higher someone that had the power to pick.

if I say I had jay Henderson rated number 1 back in 1990 whatever and he ended up the last pick in the draft then I ask... did he fall to the team? why the hell would it matter if I had him rated number 1. obviously my ratings don't matter because I don't pick

we can guess what the rankings of the teams were that passed on vaakanainen because they didn't pick him. they must have had people rated higher. so he wasn't falling to us, they were simply taking people they had rated higher

why is some other persons ratings more worthwhile than the teams that actually make picks. those teams make their own ratings. those teams picked someone they had rated higher.

but who is right??? just because they have their own ratings doesn't make them any more right or wrong. being right or wrong is something that only gets proven later.

on draft day boston had vaakanainen rated as the guy they wanted. THATS ALL WE KNOW. we know it because they picked him. the rest of it is just speculation. was he rated higher??? who knows... doesn't matter. he was rated where we took him and we did take him. actions are speaking.

someone that wants to say we 'lucked into him' doesn't know what they are talking about... lucked into him by who's judgement? who was the one that said he should go higher? obviously the teams above us didn't agree.

opinions/judgements/gradings of these kids is 100% speculative. the real value of the judements and gradings only manifests itself later by the performance. if vaikanainen players well we will feel we got 'lucky' the other teams did such a crap job scouting and missed him. we will feel 'lucky' we did a better job scouting and got him. but never will we care what some outside scouting staff had him rated at 13 or 18 or 37... its so irrelevant its not even really worth talking about and I don't know why it comes up again and again and again.

the truth is most guys drafted outside the top 10 fail as often as they succeed. its a 50-50 coin flip that any scout can hit year after year drafting at spot number 18. or at spot 30. if we hit its a bonus, but theres no guarantees.

so far this looks like a really good pick because it looks like he is hitting and hitting ahead of schedule. im a happy fan waiting to see what comes next

 

[Seidenbergy]

That's also when we played Charlie McAvoy, who we realized was an NHL player. You clipped out the original argument, which was Urho Vaakanainen should be on this roster. And when injuries do occur, Zboril or Lauzon will never get a chance due to Grzelcyk's contract and Kampfer's experience. I do believe it's a bit much.

That's all well and good but has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether last year was a fluke in terms of injuries to the D, which is all I was commenting on.

 

[rocketdan9]

someone that wants to say we 'lucked into him' doesn't know what they are talking about... lucked into him by who's judgement? who was the one that said he should go higher? obviously the teams above us didn't agree.

opinions/judgements/gradings of these kids is 100% speculative. the real value of the judements and gradings only manifests itself later by the performance. if vaikanainen players well we will feel we got 'lucky' the other teams did such a crap job scouting and missed him. we will feel 'lucky' we did a better job scouting and got him. but never will we care what some outside scouting staff had him rated at 13 or 18 or 37... its so irrelevant its not even really worth talking about and I don't know why it comes up again and again and again.

the truth is most guys drafted outside the top 10 fail as often as they succeed. its a 50-50 coin flip that any scout can hit year after year drafting at spot number 18. or at spot 30. if we hit its a bonus, but theres no guarantees.

so far this looks like a really good pick because it looks like he is hitting and hitting ahead of schedule. im a happy fan waiting to see what comes next

I agree!! I feel like Vaaka could have gone higher (and should have from what we are seeing).

But if Donny did a slight reach to grab him at 18.... well good for the Bs!

My bottom line? Vaaka certainly does not look like a player picked 18th.

 

[Tim Vezina Thomas]

I agree!! I feel like Vaaka could have gone higher (and should have from what we are seeing).

But if Donny did a slight reach to grab him at 18.... well good for the Bs!

My bottom line? Vaaka certainly does not look like a player picked 18th.

It feels like any of those Finnish/Swedish D men could have gone anywhere between 14-20 and no one would have batted an eyelash.

Regardless, I hope Vaak gets some time in the NHL this year, he looks to be a future top four D for sure.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

my absolute favorite part of this whole reach argument... there are a bunch of guys who will criticize a team when it picks someone 'too high' and 'they fail'

we hear them say... Sweeney reached for senyshyn or whoever... and they say we should have stuck to the rankings {whoever those are lol}

but these SAME PEOPLE will complain... how did this other team find player X in round 3? why cant we scout for ourselves and find these guys in Europe or highschool or wherever else they are hiding? why don't we get these secret players that other teams are able to find?

its a two faced argument. if you want your team to stick to the 'rankings' then you will NEVER find the players that other teams miss. Of course, your team could save a lot of money fire all their home town scouts and just go with the 'rankings'

even players who are 'consensus' top rankings will STILL FAIL! You will still get failed first round picks even when you stick to the rankings. This isn't about some published rankings being a better rating then your own rankings. Maybe sometimes a published ranking is better. Maybe this year red line was more accurage who they had rated 18 than we were. but will they be more accurate next year? were they more accurate last year?

its a fluke crap shoot how you rate the players this year. it was also a fluke crap shoot last year. and the year before.

each team hires scouts and pays these scouts to be as accurate as possible. some scouts are better than other scouts. but no scout is perfect. all scouts will have some fails. the ones that are better will end up having longer careers and earn a living. I wouldn't ever be able to earn a living scouting. I know the scouts are much better than I am at grading these kids and projecting them into the nhl but its still a crap shoot of sorts

even on the same team... 2 scouts will disagree. 2 scouts on the very same team will argue one player over another.

fans who think theres some sort of 'right way' of looking at this are too naïve. scouting is subjective. making draft lists is a debate. and even after the kid is drafted, the kid will develop at a level you cant be sure of. some kids develop a lot better after the draft than other kids do.

the eventual level of success and the eventual measure of a draft pick cant be judged this early into a players journey. the vaakanenain pick looks very good right now and the senyshyn pick is making a lot of us worry but its way too freaking early to be 100% certain about any of it

we can agree though that the Shayne Stevenson and Cameron mann picks I loved back in the day were not great picks... and meanwhile that ray bourque one ended up working out pretty damn ok for us

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that roster decisions needed to be made by 4PM, but I don't see a transaction for today, CapFriendly shows 23 on the roster, and UV as a non-roster player. Can UV still be with the big club because Krug is on IR? What about the transaction deadline? is it tomorrow, or is it OBE because of Krug's IR status? Someone help me out here.

 

[ODAAT]

my absolute favorite part of this whole reach argument... there are a bunch of guys who will criticize a team when it picks someone 'too high' and 'they fail'

we hear them say... Sweeney reached for senyshyn or whoever... and they say we should have stuck to the rankings {whoever those are lol}

but these SAME PEOPLE will complain... how did this other team find player X in round 3? why cant we scout for ourselves and find these guys in Europe or highschool or wherever else they are hiding? why don't we get these secret players that other teams are able to find?

its a two faced argument. if you want your team to stick to the 'rankings' then you will NEVER find the players that other teams miss. Of course, your team could save a lot of money fire all their home town scouts and just go with the 'rankings'

even players who are 'consensus' top rankings will STILL FAIL! You will still get failed first round picks even when you stick to the rankings. This isn't about some published rankings being a better rating then your own rankings. Maybe sometimes a published ranking is better. Maybe this year red line was more accurage who they had rated 18 than we were. but will they be more accurate next year? were they more accurate last year?

its a fluke crap shoot how you rate the players this year. it was also a fluke crap shoot last year. and the year before.

each team hires scouts and pays these scouts to be as accurate as possible. some scouts are better than other scouts. but no scout is perfect. all scouts will have some fails. the ones that are better will end up having longer careers and earn a living. I wouldn't ever be able to earn a living scouting. I know the scouts are much better than I am at grading these kids and projecting them into the nhl but its still a crap shoot of sorts

even on the same team... 2 scouts will disagree. 2 scouts on the very same team will argue one player over another.

fans who think theres some sort of 'right way' of looking at this are too naïve. scouting is subjective. making draft lists is a debate. and even after the kid is drafted, the kid will develop at a level you cant be sure of. some kids develop a lot better after the draft than other kids do.

the eventual level of success and the eventual measure of a draft pick cant be judged this early into a players journey. the vaakanenain pick looks very good right now and the senyshyn pick is making a lot of us worry but its way too freaking early to be 100% certain about any of it

we can agree though that the Shayne Stevenson and Cameron mann picks I loved back in the day were not great picks... and meanwhile that ray bourque one ended up working out pretty damn ok for us

terrific post friend

 

[The don godfather]

Vak looks like a brodin type which I'm thrilled. I'm very worried about zboril and senyshyn and now JFK is giving me butterflies. They aren't developing.

 

[PB37]

Vak looks like a brodin type which I'm thrilled. I'm very worried about zboril and senyshyn and now JFK is giving me butterflies. They aren't developing.

Except they are developing.

 

[Pia8988]

Vak looks like a brodin type which I'm thrilled. I'm very worried about zboril and senyshyn and now JFK is giving me butterflies. They aren't developing.

They're aren't? By what metric?

 

[PB37]

They're aren't? By what metric?

Butterflies per square inch

 

[Marcobruin]

The little I've seen from.Urho..i like. He can turn out to be a solid two way Dman . He seems very well poised and good skater

 

[Gee Wally]

The topic of this thread is Urho Vaakanainen

 

[bp13]

Is he playing tonight or is Gryz back?

 

[compan]

Is he playing tonight or is Gryz back?

Looks like Gryz, who I am very excited to see this year after what he did last year. Hopefully Vaak gets first call-up when the opportunity comes.

 

[Marcobruin]

Looks like Gryz, who I am very excited to see this year after what he did last year. Hopefully Vaak gets first call-up when the opportunity comes.

Kinda wanted to see Urho