2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by SKYO » Fri May 13, 2016 9:44 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
SKYO wrote:Only took 9 years after Wheeler got drafted to start scoring like the way he is right now.
Really?
Yup really, drafted in 04' then 3 years of college, then got going right away being a 20/20 type for a few years, finally 7 years after he got drafted he broke out with 17 goals and 47 assists.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7774
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri May 13, 2016 10:29 am

SKYO wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote:
SKYO wrote:Only took 9 years after Wheeler got drafted to start scoring like the way he is right now.
Really?
Yup really, drafted in 04' then 3 years of college, then got going right away being a 20/20 type for a few years, finally 7 years after he got drafted he broke out with 17 goals and 47 assists.
so now it's 7 years...

Point is, you'd be disappointed if our 5th overall pick turned into a consistent top-10/15 producer at his position?

If you don't like the idea of a Wheeler or Okposo at 5, imagine your frustration if we wound up with a Brett Connolly, Scott Glennie, Nikita Filitov, Sam Gagner, Gilbert Brule, Jack Skille, Zach Hamill, Zherdev or Upshall...

I'd be happy with a Scott Hartnell. At the very worst we'd be a tough team to play against and entertaining as hell on and off the ice.

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3047
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by dbr » Fri May 13, 2016 10:37 am

I think the point SKYO is nibbling around the edges of is that we should trade the pick so we can get an even worse value proposition (except a defenseman!) plus some other stuff.

Ultimately, who knows. I don't see the point of naysaying the guys who virtually everyone agrees should go at #'s 4 and 5, they may not be everything you hoped but they're the best players from what most can tell with the information at hand now.

(By the way on Wheeler taking ages to pan out.. I don't think too many Canucks fans would call the Sedins busts for example, even though they took nearly the same amount of time to break out as first liners..)

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7774
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri May 13, 2016 10:49 am

dbr wrote:I think the point SKYO is nibbling around the edges of is that we should trade the pick so we can get an even worse value proposition (except a defenseman!) plus some other stuff.

Ultimately, who knows. I don't see the point of naysaying the guys who virtually everyone agrees should go at #'s 4 and 5, they may not be everything you hoped but they're the best players from what most can tell with the information at hand now.

(By the way on Wheeler taking ages to pan out.. I don't think too many Canucks fans would call the Sedins busts for example, even though they took nearly the same amount of time to break out as first liners..)
Yeah the point I'm trying to make is getting Wheeler or Okposo type production out of Dubois or Tkachuck would be a great outcome or this draft range. If we're expecting them to be better than consistent 50-70 point players that's fairly unreasonable, IMO.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12497
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Hockey Widow » Fri May 13, 2016 10:55 am

Again I ask, would you trade down to 27-30 to get Drouin? Keeping in mind there will likely be an expansion draft and he would need to be protected? Without the expansion draft I would. But with it, I keep the pick.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by SKYO » Fri May 13, 2016 11:03 am

Well I'm glad to see the typically negative folks be happy with a decent top 6 player. :mrgreen:

task one completed.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by SKYO » Fri May 13, 2016 11:18 am

Hockey Widow wrote:Again I ask, would you trade down to 27-30 to get Drouin? Keeping in mind there will likely be an expansion draft and he would need to be protected? Without the expansion draft I would. But with it, I keep the pick.
Rummy would say fuck yeah, but we don't the got the parts to spare for such a trade, and maybe drouin pulls a hamonic and rescinds his trade request?

Probably cost the 1st + one of Hansen or McCann.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by ESQ » Fri May 13, 2016 11:24 am

This one of the more detailed examinations of draft pick values.

If you look at this chart, the drop-off in value from #3 to #5 is roughly the same as the drop-off in value from #5 to the end of the 1st round.
Image

Unfortunately, the chances of a "generational" talent at #5 are not good, and substantially less than at #3.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not strong on statistics, but it seems to me from the article that the chance of drafting a top player is higher with two mid-round picks than with one 5th overall. For example in 2013, a #9 pick (BoHo) and a #23 pick (Burakovsky) are more valuable than one 5th overall (Elias Lindholm).

If you can convert the 5th overall into a combo of picks that gives a greater statistical probability of getting a top forward (e.g. 2 late-1sts and a 2nd, 2 mid-1sts), then I think JB has to go for it. Its not as though drafting in the mid- or late-1st round guarantees the player will be a bottom-six forward.

And when it comes to defenseman, the chances of getting a top-4 in later picks goes up relative to forwards, so if that is an organizational need, it makes sense to get more picks rather than high picks.

Now if you could get Montreal's 9th, and one (or both) of their seconds, for Dubois, that would yuuge.

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by SKYO » Fri May 13, 2016 11:31 am

Damn ESQ ya'll be droppin' bombs on IN's & DBR's master plans.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 3607
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by micky107 » Fri May 13, 2016 11:52 am

Hockey Widow wrote:Again I ask, would you trade down to 27-30 to get Drouin? Keeping in mind there will likely be an expansion draft and he would need to be protected? Without the expansion draft I would. But with it, I keep the pick.
I know what your saying!!
But no, I would not strictly because he had a hissy fit and that's a put off for me. We should get a player near or at his caliber, maybe a little greener.. ;) ;) ;)
"evolution"

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by SKYO » Fri May 13, 2016 12:09 pm

stole this viahf - in regards to Juolevi.
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher....

If you take an in depth look at the defensemen taken top 15 in the last 10 years vs forwards the bust rate of forwards vs defensemen is actually almost identical. I've crunched the numbers on another board.

This type of lazy analysis and generalizations gets us nowhere.

Here's a very brief look at it, if someone wants to do an in depth analysis I encourage it.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2006e.html

2006 - Biggest bust in the top 10? James Sheppard a forward.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2007e.html

2007 - You say Thomas Hickey at 4 (which was a reach at the time)? I say Sam Gagner at #6. Biggest bust in the top 10? Zach Hamill, a forward. Alzner, McDonagh and Shattenkirk turned out just fine. Hickey disappointed relative to draft position but that was more the Kings reaching for him than anything, he wasn't rated to go anywhere near #4. Ellerby is a disappointment as well.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2008e.html

2008 - Doughty, Bogosian, Pietroangelo, Schenn, Myers, Teubert and E. Karlsson all go top 15. Only Teubert busted. Meanwhile for forwards Filatov, Kyle Beach and Zach Boychuk were busts. Biggest bust in the top 10? Filatov a forward. So in this draft defensemen were FAR safer than forwards. And in the 2nd half of the first round as well you found d-men like Gardiner, Carlsson, Sbisa and Del Zotto. Meanwhile for forwards? Only Colborne, Ennis and Eberle. If you philosophically steered away from defensemen for forwards this draft you would have been making a fundamental mistake.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2009e.html

2009 - Hedman at #2? Franchise D. OEL at #6? Franchise D. Ellis, De Haan, Kulikov and Leddy? All useful players. Only Jared Cowan is arguably a bust and injuries derailed him. Biggest bust in the top 10? Scott Glennie a forward.

Anyways we could go on but this idea that defensemen taken high are more risky is a total myth in the last 10 years. Your examples of defensemen who are taken high busting is easily matched by a list of forwards taken high who busted. Your examples of star defensemen taken in the 2nd and later are easily matched by examples of star forwards being taken in the 2nd and later. Those examples prove nothing. If you do an in depth analysis of the bust rate for defensemen taken top 10 in the draft its going to be very similar to the bust rate for forwards taken in the top 10. If anything recent history is showing forwards may be more risky overall.

Throw in the fact that top 3-4 defensemen hold crazy value in trade and shying away from them in the top 10 of the draft if they are the best player available would be a foolish strategy and philosophy.
pronman analysis on canucks pick
I am also not entirely convinced Vancouver keeps its top pick, given the rumor around rinks that the Canucks are looking to add a top-tier defense prospect and could probably grab a similar quality one by moving down a couple of spots. If they do stick, Chychrun notches some check marks for a Jim Benning-run team, as an athletic, physical, top-end two-way defenseman.
Since the draft is over a month away, why not bring up that possibility?

The other dmen we could get if we moved down some spots, chychrun, juolevi, sergachev, bean, fabbro.

But for blobby, pronman also points out
The reason to prioritize forwards at the top of the draft is because the majority of top forwards in the league are found there, not because they are inherently safer.

You very rarely find an elite forward outside the top of the draft. But finding elite defensemen outside the top of the draft is more common.
So on one hand we need more top end forwards, but on the other hand we really need more shots in the barrel at finding a top dman, and those guys can be found anywhere in the 1st - 2nd rounds.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7774
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri May 13, 2016 12:40 pm

SKYO wrote:Damn ESQ ya'll be droppin' bombs on IN's & DBR's master plans.
How so? I'm saying we should be happy if we get Wheeler-type production out of that pick. You seem to be saying that's what we should be expecting, or that a Wheeler-type player would be a disappointment for that draft position. I'm not advocating trading the pick or keeping it, just pointing out your expectations are out to lunch.

All ESQ's chart highlights is that we're unlikely to get a superstar at 5. But the guys at 5 still generally turn out better than guys later on.

User avatar
Rede
CC Veteran
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Rede » Fri May 13, 2016 12:56 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Again I ask, would you trade down to 27-30 to get Drouin? Keeping in mind there will likely be an expansion draft and he would need to be protected? Without the expansion draft I would. But with it, I keep the pick.
Maybe, if they include Stamkos' rights - 8yr contract offer ;-)

User avatar
Tciso
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Tciso » Fri May 13, 2016 1:31 pm

SKYO wrote:
So on one hand we need more top end forwards, but on the other hand we really need more shots in the barrel at finding a top dman, and those guys can be found anywhere in the 1st - 2nd rounds.
I'd be leery about trading the 5th overall for a 2 later picks. Yes, we get 2 shots at a D man, but, I think the #5 will be worth more in the end. There is something to be said about quality over quantity, and right now, the canucks have the quantity of maybe NHL'ers kinda covered, but only a few of the kids are bonified NHLers. Take the sure thing, and trade for a D-man if we need one later
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by ESQ » Fri May 13, 2016 2:05 pm

Tciso wrote: I'd be leery about trading the 5th overall for a 2 later picks. Yes, we get 2 shots at a D man, but, I think the #5 will be worth more in the end. There is something to be said about quality over quantity, and right now, the canucks have the quantity of maybe NHL'ers kinda covered, but only a few of the kids are bonified NHLers. Take the sure thing, and trade for a D-man if we need one later
That's the thing - 5th overall is not a sure thing.

If we had the 3rd, I'd be with you 100% - your odds of getting a star player at #3 are far more certain than at #5. That's particularly clear in this draft, where the top-3 have really set themselves apart and will be in the NHL next year.

I think I agree with your basic point, because obviously a 5th is more likely to pan out than a 15th. But, if you are really confident in your scouting ability, then I think it makes sense to accumulate more picks. Especially as none of the BPAs where we'll be picking really address an organizational need.

Post Reply