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: 9266
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: 1695
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: 9266
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: 4410
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: 9266
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: 7928
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: 1642
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: 1695
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.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12993
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Hockey Widow » Fri May 13, 2016 3:16 pm

Well ESQ, Dubois plays centre. Is that not an organizational need, a centre to replace Hank?

Since Sbisa is a top four Dman why not offer him to Edmonton for their pick? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1695
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by ESQ » Fri May 13, 2016 4:22 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Well ESQ, Dubois plays centre. Is that not an organizational need, a centre to replace Hank?
Is that a reasonable ceiling for Dubois? Is there a chance he'll turn out to be one of the top-5 centers of his generation? Will he jump over the other center prospects McCann, Horvat, Gaunce?

I suppose you're right, if you think he's a future Ross winner, you go with Dubois. But if he's another center who'll top out at 70 points, I think that doesn't address the organizational need.
Since Sbisa is a top four Dman why not offer him to Edmonton for their pick? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Hm, howbout just straight up for Hall? :mex:

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri May 13, 2016 5:15 pm

ESQ wrote:Will he jump over the other center prospects McCann, Horvat, Gaunce?
Chances are good he's better than all of them.

If we want to acquire more picks, we should trade players for them. If we really want to trade down in the draft, move 33 for a late second and a third.
Last edited by Island Nucklehead on Fri May 13, 2016 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12993
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Hockey Widow » Fri May 13, 2016 6:16 pm

ESQ I don't know his upside to be honest. I was just commenting that we still have an organizational need for top two centre. I don't see Horvat being a number one, number two yes, down the road.

Gaunce will never be a number one centre. He still may end up a winger. At best I see him as a utility forward who will be able to fill in at the two pivot when there are injuries but more so a bottom nine forward.

I'm not sold on McCann, yet. He has skill no question but needs to work on his strength and conditioning. He needs, IMHO, 1-2 years in Utica. He needs to learn to play in traffic and a bigger game. He has shown the willingness to do so but needs seasoning.

I think we still have a big need to find that top two centre, someone who can transition into the top spot. I have no idea if Dubois will be that though. Potential seems to be there but he still needs to develop.
The only HW the Canucks need

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3048
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by dbr » Fri May 13, 2016 7:14 pm

I don't like these analyses.

If you look at games played, Ben Eager and Taylor Pyatt are successful first round draft picks.

The chart that ESQ posted of expected points from a player at a given pick, specifically excludes goaltenders (obviously) and defensemen because the author says they are too hard to project... fucking SKYO :lol:

Then there's the fact that the 1995-2007 sample shows a grand total of, what, 13 maximum players (less goaltenders and defensemen) at any position so how strong is your sample? Sure that's not a concern when determining whether it's better to have #3 or #5 or #7 because no fucking shit.. but what about when you're trying to figure out the difference between #3 and #5 (which obviously varies from year to year) or whether you'd rather have #5 or #7 and #37 (again varies, but I can at least understand trying to figure out the value in principle)?

Year to year variation and what you actually do with the picks is also a huge issue.. sure in 2013 you'd rather have Horvat and Burakovsky but maybe you would have taken Monahan at 5 instead. Or consider 2006 when you'd probably be happy to just take Phil Kessel at 5 rather than James Sheppard at 9 and Semyon Varlamov at 23.

At the end of the day.. Jimbo and his staff have their own intelligence on these players and are going to do what they feel is best and I just hope they are right. For those of us who haven't seen the top 20 prospects play a handful of times each, it sure looks like most scouts see a pretty clear cut group of five players at the top which is why it makes sense to me to hang onto the pick that lets us take one of them.

(And it's not like I haven't bandied about the idea of trading down on here in the past.. in 2014 for example when we were outside of that top five group.)

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 17134
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Strangelove » Fri May 13, 2016 7:35 pm

dbr wrote: it sure looks like most scouts see a pretty clear cut group of five players at the top which is why it makes sense to me to hang onto the pick that lets us take one of them.
Yup.

Great post btw David

... especially that "fucking SKYO" part. :)
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Post Reply