THE 2015 NHL Entry Draft Thread (McDavid, Eichel et al.)

[Hockey Widow]

I think we can all agree that it is highly unlikely we will be in the hunt for the top two picks. Regardless, this is not the year to trade our top pick. End of story.

[Betamax]

I think we can all agree that it is highly unlikely we will be in the hunt for the top two picks. Regardless, this is not the year to trade our top pick. End of story.

HW, if the Canucks could acquire a young 1C (Johansen) with that pick as part of the package .... I would fully endorse that move. I think it would take the equivalent of three 1st rounders (maybe more) in terms of asset value to acquire him, if he is made available.

Look when a young 1C (Seguin) can be traded or a young 1RW (Kessel) can be moved ....... anything is possible.

What is needed are contract negotiations between the two sides to get frosty and he sits out to the point that it literally forces a move.

[Island Nucklehead]

My contention...that there were two that stood out from the crowd Generational talent although some would say one. i.e. As far as I know, as deep as the 2003 Draft Class was in quality, none of the prospects at the time were considered potential "Generational" Talents like in 2005 Draft with Crosby or the 2008 Draft with Stamkos and Doughty.

Who gives a fuck about "at the time"? Are you saying it matters more how prospects are predicted pre-draft, versus how they actually turn out? I mean, should we still be looking at 2006 as the "Erik Johnson and the Centres" draft, or do we see that as the draft where Pittsburgh (and St Louis) passed on Toews?

Let's just sum this up right now, do you disagree with the following statement:

I said there were many high end talents coming up in the 2015 draft.

[Betamax]

My contention...that there were two that stood out from the crowd Generational talent although some would say one. i.e. As far as I know, as deep as the 2003 Draft Class was in quality, none of the prospects at the time were considered potential "Generational" Talents like in 2005 Draft with Crosby or the 2008 Draft with Stamkos and Doughty.

Who gives a fuck about "at the time"? Are you saying it matters more how prospects are predicted pre-draft, versus how they actually turn out? I mean, should we still be looking at 2006 as the "Erik Johnson and the Centres" draft, or do we see that as the draft where Pittsburgh (and St Louis) passed on Toews?

Let's just sum this up right now, do you disagree with the following statement:

I said there were many high end talents coming up in the 2015 draft.

I don't disagree with what is stated in that quote, but I think it was rather disrespectful for Blob to refer to The Betamax as "Betapus" for stating the following:

I don't think no matter how hard they try, even if they could re-hire the late Bill Laforge, could they finish with the worst record next season to essentially guarantee themselves one of two future "superstars."

What say you?

[Strangelove]

Google is your friend Captain.

Talk about resorting to low hanging fruit when you have to resort to citing a "drafting service" that pretty much no one has heard of. LOL .......

No wonder so many posters are putting you on ignore for your goalposts-moving ways.

You asked for "ONE mock draft you feel is credible" that ranks the 2015 draft the way Blob claimed.

You asked for "ANY 2015 Mock NHL Drafts that supported Blob's claims"

... even going so far as to quote "a mock draft from an hfboard user".

Masta Beta, at the end of the day Blob was right and you were wrong.

Yours truly DID INDEED FIND a mock draft that Blob feels is credible (doesn't matter if YOU do).

And yours truly did it using Google (something you claimed was not possible).

If you're going to call a respected poster like Blob out... you should apologize when proven wrong.

Anything less would be uncivilized.

(could be construed as "trolling")

Thank you and have a nice evening!

[Betamax]

Google is your friend Captain.

Talk about resorting to low hanging fruit when you have to resort to citing a "drafting service" that pretty much no one has heard of. LOL .......

No wonder so many posters are putting you on ignore for your goalposts-moving ways.

You asked for "ONE mock draft you feel is credible" that ranks the 2015 draft the way Blob claimed.

You asked for "ANY 2015 Mock NHL Drafts that supported Blob's claims"

... even going so far as to quote "a mock draft from an hfboard user".

Masta Beta, at the end of the day Blob was right and you were wrong.

Yours truly DID INDEED FIND a mock draft that Blob feels is credible (doesn't matter if YOU do).

And yours truly did it using Google (something you claimed was not possible).

If you're going to call a respected poster like Blob out... you should apologize when proven wrong.

Anything less would be uncivilized.

(could be construed as "trolling")

Thank you and have a nice evening!

Oh please .... maybe if cyber bro blob had shown some respect and courtesy in the first place and not call Betamax out as "Betapus" and provided a response that actually refuted what I stated and had the courtesy to provide a link to that specific site ........ if he felt it was in fact "credible."

Seriously, as per that web site that allegedly is what blob was using as a resource, IMO, when you have an hfboards user trying to monetizing his "knowledge" and trying to promote himself as a "draft scout" expert .... I think that's a bit rich. I mean, he has a one year track record and it started with the 2014 Draft for God's Sake.

I would have put more stock in Blob referencing an armchair prospect scouting expert, *if* he cited the de facto Canucks Corner Director of Scouting i.e. Pac Blue aka RoyalDude née Bikerdude as his go to guy for Mock Drafts information. In other words, I can forgive the fact that Bikerdude once was bullish on Milan Gajic and pumped his tires to an excessive degree ...... but even the best talent evaluators, duh, miss on some projections, eh?

[Strangelove]

Google is your friend Captain.

Talk about resorting to low hanging fruit when you have to resort to citing a "drafting service" that pretty much no one has heard of. LOL .......

No wonder so many posters are putting you on ignore for your goalposts-moving ways.

You asked for "ONE mock draft you feel is credible" that ranks the 2015 draft the way Blob claimed.

You asked for "ANY 2015 Mock NHL Drafts that supported Blob's claims"

... even going so far as to quote "a mock draft from an hfboard user".

Masta Beta, at the end of the day Blob was right and you were wrong.

Yours truly DID INDEED FIND a mock draft that Blob feels is credible (doesn't matter if YOU do).

And yours truly did it using Google (something you claimed was not possible).

If you're going to call a respected poster like Blob out... you should apologize when proven wrong.

Anything less would be uncivilized.

(could be construed as "trolling")

[Betamax]

*****

No need to double post.

[Strangelove]

*****

No need to double post.

Apparently... THERE IS!!

[Betamax]

by Betamax » Fri May 23, 2014 3:12 pm:

They'll be getting a lot more playoff revenue if they tear it down and get top value now, before a wicked draft.

Hopefully the Francesco fuckups of yesteryear have convinced him to butt out.

I don't think no matter how hard they try, even if they could re-hire the late Bill Laforge, could they finish with the worst record next season to essentially guarantee themselves one of two future "superstars."

The bold, duh, virtually confirmed by this tweet:

via: https://twitter.com/BNHarrington/status ... 2104060928

Mike Harrington ‏@BNHarrington
Buffalo News baseball columnist and Sabres beat writer. 2013 Buffalo Baseball HOF inductee. 'Mike, YOU coach!' -- Lindy Ruff, 1/18/12

Mike Harrington ‏@BNHarrington

#Sabres GM Tim Murray says No. 1 odds next year drop to 19-20 % and confirms they would only drop to No. 2 in '15 if last/lottery loser

8:48 AM - 27 Jun 2014

Now, with the addition of Miller and Vrbata and the Canucks only shipping out one of their older players with an NTC, I think it's safe to say that they have a better chance at #WINNING the Stanley Cup rather than finishing with the worst record overall and guarantee'ing themselves a top 2 pick that would fetch them a potential Generational Player in either McDavid or Eichel.

I say the Canucks on paper they are in the mix to make it to the Playoffs .... but if they miss it, will likely be in the 10-14 range if they don't win the lottery. As the tweet confirms, the better non-playoffs teams will get a slightly better chance at winning the lottery as the percentages are shifted a bit .... so that in itself adds "trade value" to the pick.

If the Canucks can secure a potential 2C with 1C potential or a 3-4D with top pairing potential that's under 25, so yeah ....... I think they should go "all in" in not only trying to not only make the Playoffs but be able to "compete" there and offer their 2015 1st pick if the deal make sense and fits those criterias. Especially with the Sedins' window of being productive upper echelon players is likely going to be within the next couple of years.

As it stands, the Canucks are in half and half mode. Trying to compete for a Playoffs spot but still trying to Rebuild the team with younger players.

Can you have your cake and eat it too and be completely satisfied at the end?

[Diehard1]

I think we can all agree that it is highly unlikely we will be in the hunt for the top two picks. Regardless, this is not the year to trade our top pick. End of story.

Not sure where this thread is off to, but I agree with this sentiment as well. There's still a year to play before this draft, meaning some kids will jump way up while some will fall off. Sam Bennett for example wasn't a top 30 pick at this time last year and ended up going 4th overall.

With kids like Barzal, Konecny, Hanifin, Kylington, Strome (the younger), Marner along with Eichel and McDavid - and these are just the ones off the top of my head - there's no reason to give up a high pick.

That said, if the trade is one you can't say no to the obviously you take it, though I can't see that happening.

[Chef Boi RD]

With the job Benning and Linden are doing I could see this team pushing for a playoff spot. With all the sideshow distractions eliminated and the enthusiasm of fresh new faces and youth, new regime et al would not be surprised to see a vast improvement of the on ice product

As long as the Benning regime doesn't trade prospects and draft picks I dont think it matters where you draft. It's all about having depth in the prospect pool. In 2015 we will be drafting somewhere between 10 and 20. We will sti get a good prospect in that range to add to our growing depth of quality prospects

[herb]

As long as the Benning regime doesn't trade prospects and draft picks I dont think it matters where you draft. It's all about having depth in the prospect pool. In 2015 we will be drafting somewhere between 10 and 20. We will sti get a good prospect in that range to add to our growing depth of quality prospects

I agree.

Buffalo may get McDavid, but they're still a shit organization with no direction like Edmonton.

I'd rather pick 10-20, compete for a playoff spot, develop our prospects in Utica and integrate the youngsters with the big team gradually while teaching them how to be pros.

[Island Nucklehead]

As long as the Benning regime doesn't trade prospects and draft picks I dont think it matters where you draft. It's all about having depth in the prospect pool. In 2015 we will be drafting somewhere between 10 and 20. We will sti get a good prospect in that range to add to our growing depth of quality prospects

Bingo. The "dual track" approach, I like it. Understand that we're not ready to sell our futures to "put us over the top" because we're not a Conference Finals/top-tier team, but that doesn't mean we suck either. Don't give away our good players for nothing, only to develop a culture of losing and hope for a top pick. The key is not getting top-end draft picks every year, but making good choices wherever you pick. Like Dude said, it's easier to make good picks when you have more of them to make.

No rentals. No overpayments. No mortgaging the future for short-sighted optical gains. No "tanking".

[sagebrush]

Bingo. The "dual track" approach, I like it. Understand that we're not ready to sell our futures to "put us over the top" because we're not a Conference Finals/top-tier team, but that doesn't mean we suck either. Don't give away our good players for nothing, only to develop a culture of losing and hope for a top pick. The key is not getting top-end draft picks every year, but making good choices wherever you pick. Like Dude said, it's easier to make good picks when you have more of them to make.

No rentals. No overpayments. No mortgaging the future for short-sighted optical gains. No "tanking".

Overpayment is a relative thing. I have no problem paying more than other teams would for a player, as long as it doesn't hamstring other cap requirements, only requires short term cap space, & doesn't cost prospects/picks. Especially if the player brought in will be mentoring our young guys.