2026 NHL Draft

[Carl Yagro]

Snipped this from HockeyWriters...

First Round Draft Picks:

1+ NHL Games: 88.8% (1262/1420)
100+ NHL Games: 70.2% (997/1420)
300+ NHL Games: 54.5% (774/1420)
500+ NHL Games: 42.9% (610/1420)
750+ NHL Games: 25.2% (359/1420)
1000+ NHL Games: 13.5% (192/1420)

1+ NHL Points: 84.4% (1199/1420)
100+ NHL Points: 83.6% (740/1420)
300+ NHL Points: 29.9% (425/1420)
500+ NHL Points: 17.9% (255/1420)
750+ NHL Points: 8.3% (118/1420)
1000+ NHL Points: 3.8% (55/1420)

[Ronning's Ghost]

95%?

I think the % of success for a 1st round NHL pick is somewhere around 70.

Snipped this from HockeyWriters...

OK, yes and yes, but it also varies by position within the first round, and we've been able to be at 95% sure about some players over the years.

But that wasn't the point. They were numbers made up in an attempt to illustrate that "best" player does not have an obvious unique definition when you're talking about probabilities, or what the organization needs.

"Highest ceiling", on the other hand, is much more specific.

[Nuckertuzzi]

In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy local kid was a good idea.

In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.

In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.

Today we have absolutely nothing to show for a 5th and 6th overall pick, yet scored a haul of 1st round equivalent assets with the 7th that can extend and branch off to subsequent assets for the next decade or possibly more, providing they pan out.

Such an astronomical, fortune-changing difference in outlook between those wasted picks to the one that landed big.

Dumb it the fuck down and go BPA every time.

[donlever]

Good to see.you.

Well said.

[dangler]

But when you factor how many picks don’t actually hit, even in the top-10, it only underscores the need to acquire picks in a rebuild.

This is the bottom line no matter which way you lean.
Some great discussion in this thread.

Snipped this from HockeyWriters...

First Round Draft Picks:

1+ NHL Games: 88.8% (1262/1420)
100+ NHL Games: 70.2% (997/1420)
300+ NHL Games: 54.5% (774/1420)
500+ NHL Games: 42.9% (610/1420)
750+ NHL Games: 25.2% (359/1420)
1000+ NHL Games: 13.5% (192/1420)

1+ NHL Points: 84.4% (1199/1420)
100+ NHL Points: 83.6% (740/1420)
300+ NHL Points: 29.9% (425/1420)
500+ NHL Points: 17.9% (255/1420)
750+ NHL Points: 8.3% (118/1420)
1000+ NHL Points: 3.8% (55/1420)

[rikster]

In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy local kid was a good idea.

In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.

In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.

Today we have absolutely nothing to show for a 5th and 6th overall pick, yet scored a haul of 1st round equivalent assets with the 7th that can extend and branch off to subsequent assets for the next decade or possibly more, providing they pan out.

Such an astronomical, fortune-changing difference in outlook between those wasted picks to the one that landed big.

Dumb it the fuck down and go BPA every time.

I agree with drafting BPA because needs can change between the draft and when the drafted players enter the league...

As for the wasted picks you listed, you can cut and paste and post it on any teams message board ...

As for the breakdown on hits per round, I've often thought that when we argue over trading or aquiring draft picks instead of saying the team dealt a pick in this round, we should say the team dealt a pick with a % of playing 500 NHL games...

Why 500 games? For the most part aren't players who don't have a career longer than 500 games just JAG's? (just a guy)

[Blob Mckenzie]

In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy local kid was a good idea.

In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.

In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.

Today we have absolutely nothing to show for a 5th and 6th overall pick, yet scored a haul of 1st round equivalent assets with the 7th that can extend and branch off to subsequent assets for the next decade or possibly more, providing they pan out.

Such an astronomical, fortune-changing difference in outlook between those wasted picks to the one that landed big.

Dumb it the fuck down and go BPA every time.

Yeah you can't fuck up top 10 picks. Vancouver was 2/5 under Elmer. I am not a scout but its fun to watch the draft, follow it a bit and think ' who will they pick'. ???


Blob

2014- Nick Ritchie and Ivan Barbashev
2015- Travis Konecny
2016- Little Walt
2017 -Gabe Vilardi
2018 - Noah Dobson
2019 - Mathew Boldy
2022- Liam Ohgren
2023- Tomas Wilander
2025- Keyshawn Atchison
2026- Gavin Mckenna


Blob Brackett

[theman]

As an aside, it is interesting that Vancouver seems to whiff in the 6 - 10 range but do well mid first round.

[Blob Mckenzie]

In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy local kid was a good idea.

In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.

In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.

Today we have absolutely nothing to show for a 5th and 6th overall pick, yet scored a haul of 1st round equivalent assets with the 7th that can extend and branch off to subsequent assets for the next decade or possibly more, providing they pan out.

Such an astronomical, fortune-changing difference in outlook between those wasted picks to the one that landed big.

Dumb it the fuck down and go BPA every time.

I agree with drafting BPA because needs can change between the draft and when the drafted players enter the league...

As for the wasted picks you listed, you can cut and paste and post it on any teams message board ...

As for the breakdown on hits per round, I've often thought that when we argue over trading or aquiring draft picks instead of saying the team dealt a pick in this round, we should say the team dealt a pick with a % of playing 500 NHL games...

Why 500 games? For the most part aren't players who don't have a career longer than 500 games just JAG's? (just a guy)

Rikster I think the team's scouting went for a shit after Pat and Mike Penny were booted look at the drafting in Western Canada from 87-96. Delorme got marginalized abd ridiculed. He was a good scout.

[rikster]

Rikster I think the team's scouting went for a shit after Pat and Mike Penny were booted look at the drafting in Western Canada from 87-96. Delorme got marginalized abd ridiculed. He was a good scout.

Blob, you're more knowledgable than I am on that time period ... more recently what seems odd to me is that the Gillis regime was known to be a very forward thinking management group with a deep and experienced hockey ops department....

Under Benning it went lean and old school...

Was that an overeaction on ownerships part to the expensive payroll in hockey ops under Gillis ?

Whatever it was the timing was poor in that the league was getting younger and younger and losing the team controlled 2nd contract which made it even more crucial to increase the number of hits at the draft table and employ a strong capologist along with a deep and talented amateur and pro scouting departments...

They lost the ability to be proactive and became more reactive which AI describes as;

Hit a cap problem after it already exists

Scramble to fix it under time pressure

Sacrifice assets or flexibility to get compliant

Choose the “least bad” option, not the optimal one

That has changed under Rutherford and his hockey ops department, with the Quinn Hughes trade being an example of being pro active and getting ahead of a pending crisis....https://www.nhl.com/canucks/team/hockey-operations

More and more the hockey world is using the Canucks approach to Quinn's situtation and/or the way they deal quickly with deals that didn't work out as the way to be proactive and manage looming challenges or issues....

[Cousin Strawberry]

They're going to have to beef up moving forward. How about that Rossi/Garland/holander line they threw over the boards! How do they fit skates on those huge feet?

[Megaterio Llamas]

[JelloPuddingPop]

https://www.nhl.com/canucks/team/hockey-operations

Wondering when they'll give Ryan Johnson the keys. Let Rutherford retire, fire the fuck out of Alvin, and keep Dale on as advisor.

[UWSaint]

And at the end of the day, this organization needs at least one (probably more) exceptional players. It wouldn't bother me at all if the Canucks approach to drafting (hopefully) 3 first rounders next summer is ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling.

Am I reading your intent correctly in that when you say "ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling", you are meaning BPA, BPA, and BPA?

Had to disappear from this (good) discussion....

Ronning's Ghost's posts express exactly what I meant by ceiling v. BPA (or anything else). I'll add a couple more observations to this:

(1) The earlier you are in the draft, the more likely BPA and ceiling will merge. Because the top players in most drafts not only have terrific upside, but they are very likely to make a good contribution.

(2) As you descend the draft, you are getting players who have more holes in their game -- some of those holes are the type that if not fixed they won't be NHLers, but if they are fixed than their other attributes could make them very special. Others have holes that you don't see as likely impediments to an NHL career, but they lack (and are not terribly likely to develop) the top end attributes to make them special. These are the guys with a higher floor, because they've got the legs, they've got "compete", they've got the discipline, they've got the size, they've got the hockey IQ, they've always played well against the hardest (or older) competition.

(3) Another way to articulate what I mean by ceiling, is that the question is "what player is most likely to become a CORE player in my franchise." BPA might think "what player is most likely to be above marginal and contribute at the NHL level, top 9, top 5D. There's stuff in between of course, and projection is not a science, but there is a slight difference. And its absolutely valid that the question being asked at the draft table changes from year to year based on what's in the pipeline, and it also is something that might change pick to pick (just as position consideration becomes more valid as the draft continues. While we might disagree on this to some degree (I definitely lean player over position), you have to avoid extreme imbalance -- e.g., you really don't want to go 4 drafts (or even three) without a goalie. My suggestion is that the Canucks should go ceiling on all of their 1sts (hopefully 3) next year.

In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy local kid was a good idea.

In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.

In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.

On Virtanen, I am not sure how much the local thing played into it, but isn't it interesting that there are posters here complaining about retaining players in Canada who would probably also say this wasn't a valid thing for them to consider. My guess is that Canucks staff saw Virtanen as the ceiling player at that point -- and that's a painful remainder to what I am advocating here. It will not always work out.

On Juolevi, it seems the pick was both positionally driven and lowest perceived floor. That's why not McAvoy, not Sergeychev. Now, the scouts were wrong about Juolevi's floor, seemingly collectively, though injuries may have played a role. This only goes to show that no matter the question you are asking (ceiling, BPA, safest), scouting and projection is inexact.

I recall a pretty split opinion among the blabbering heads on Tkachuk, but I think he was seen as highest potential upside at the time Juolevi was picked. But I could also see Tkachuk as being seen as having a fairly high floor (with some questions about personality). But maybe the better example of the ceiling pick in that draft was Keller, who there was a lot of doubt about his floor and wasn't expected to go at 7. Definitely a player who was viewed than if he can get through the cracks that are large enough to keep him out of the league, he could be a core player for a franchise, but there's a potential for a bust. And I think he became that core player for Utah; and Alex Nylander, selected next for upside, became the bust.

On Hughes, I definitely think that he was both BPA and ceiling when drafted. The thing that kept him from being drafted earlier was size -- to be sure there was also a (related) concern that would he only be an offensive defenseman. This is why you shouldn't get path dependent about size. Its a factor into figuring out whether a guy is the BPA, but drawing bright lines is just stupid. All bright lines do is blind. Lesson is yes, get out of the way, but more than that, do not impose inflexible criteria. At some point in a draft, the shorter guy is the BPA/ceiling; the potential bad attitude is the BPA/ceiling; the guy with a skating issue is the BPA/ceiling.

[Carl Yagro]

I like your thinking there JPP. Teams have avoided hiring the same old dinosaurs and instead given the role to younger execs with asst. GM experience and even ex-players with lesser front office experience.

Wine not Ryan Johnson? Maybe the twins as dual Presidents with Dale advising them.

I really appreciate UW's posts, but I have to read them slowly at least five times to fully comprehend. I know I'm a bit slow, but it's a lot to digest.