2026 NHL Draft

[Lancer]

IMO, BPA is "Highest ceiling" combined with "Best chances of reaching their ceiling" instead of "Highest floor".

When you look at recent whiffs on 'organizational need' picks like Juolevi and Virtanen, in a draft like this it has to be BPA and if it's a choice between McKenna or Stenberg leave it to the scouts. If both are off the board, there are worse outcomes than a top pairing of Buium and Verhoeff.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Several years ago I did an analysis of odds of a draft player playing , I believe 250 or 300 NHL games and after the top ten of the 1st round it becomes a bit of a crap shoot with odds significantly decreasing the later in the draft you go.

So then finding core players relies on not just stockpiling first round picks, but top 10 picks.

Do you recall whether late first rounders were significantly more likely to reach 300 games than mid second rounders ?

[Ronning's Ghost]

IMO, BPA is "Highest ceiling" combined with "Best chances of reaching their ceiling" instead of "Highest floor".

I think that's a perfectly sensible definition, but then you have to address the relative weighting of the two factors. For example, would you prefer (supposing that both the probabilities and the ceilings could be reasonably projected) 65% chance future Art Ross trophy winner, 35% streaky 2nd liner, or 90% consistent top 20 scorer (but never top 10), 10% consistent top 40 scorer?

[Cornuck]

IMO, BPA is "Highest ceiling" combined with "Best chances of reaching their ceiling" instead of "Highest floor".

That's always been my definition, too - Shoot for the stars - the floor could be anything. From the Josh Holden Story someone posted, to Luc Boudon- there are no guarantees, so you take the talent, conditioning, attitude, and look at the complete player.

[Topper]

I recall the largest drop was within the first round, like driving a new car off the lot.

[5thhorseman]

If you want to maximize, calculate the Expected Value:

EV = P x B where P is the probability of outcome and B is its benefit or payoff.

Of course, quantifying P and B is where the difficulty lies.

[Aaronp18]

The next couple years we need to hit a couple out of the park.

I've been thinking about that, and I'm not sure it's true. If they really are rebuilding, and are willing to endure 3 years of losing a lot and drafting high, and trading everything to accumulate other teams' draft assets, I suspect that as long as the players selected in the first round reach the median performance of their draft positions, that would enough to give the Canucks a decent multi-season window. That is to say, it's more important that JR/PA don't strike out than that they hit home runs. If that's true, then I would be in the "highest floor" camp for the Canucks' first round picks.

The test, of course, would be to go back over a relevant period long enough ago, find the median at each draft position, and then see whether posters here thought players of that calibre, combined with the good young assets they already have, would be enough to ice a roster with a reasonable shot. We'll see how interesting the rest of my Saturday night turns out to be.

You mention a lot of variables, but really the key is going to be drafting as high as possible as there seems to be a lot less margin of error. There's that fun stat of something around 95% of the Stanley Cup winners in the last 25 year have had a top 3 pick on their roster. Now technically we can attain that in any way, but since we're all in on the tank there's a good chance that's the route we take.

Either way, when I say home run it's really open to interpretation as well and I understand that. Drafting in the topBut we need to find players that can play above their draft status even later in the rounds. Or at lease some guys that can become full time roster players on ELCs!

For this draft it seems fairly certain we will be near the top, and a good chance we are top 3. This seemingly will get us a very impactful player this year, and we have several draft picks later on as well. It will be a good start to our rebuild. Hopefully some of the kids either drafted after the top pick we have also can become NHL regulars, I guess from my standpoint for this draft that would be a homerun.

As far as who we prioritize this draft any one of the top 3 seem as thought they will be top tier players. Still hard pressed to ignore McKenna at #1 even with Verhoeff there as well. I think maybe one of the benefits of Keaton is I can see him playing another season in the NCAA, Stenberg may stay in Sweden but I'm sure McKenna is going to want to make the jump to the NHL next season.

Looking to next year there seems to be a good number of centre's projected to go in the top 5 - Alexis Joseph, Carter Meyer and Jaxon Jacobson. And then Landon Dupont on defense. Now a lot can change in a year but if things don't change much we may have a good shot at a top tier centre in 2027.

Anyways, time will tell. Definitely looking forward to this years draft and seeing some high end prospects make their way through our system in te next few years!

[Carl Yagro]

Of course, quantifying P and B is where the difficulty lies.

P and B may be the main ingredients, but you need the J to go along with it.

The JAM maximizes the value.

I'm hungry now. Somebody make me a sammy.

[2Fingers]

IMO you can win without an elite D man but usually not without an elite forward. Even though as Tops said, build from the net out this year has shown without top notch forwards you ain’t going far. We had a top 2 defender in the league on the team and it didn't move the dial.

I know there are a lot of variables that goes into the make up of a team but I would still pick a forward especially for this team in its current construction.

[Hockey Widow]

So the Canucks have already met with Verhoeff. Telling.

[Topper]

Look beyond your two fingers.

Are you building or tinkering?

Off season, many here thought Vancouver's d was a strength, it wasn't, it was a failure. The Sea of Granlund easier to fix

Gavin isn't a generational talent. He's good but doesn't seperate himself from the rest of his class. The fact he's in discussion with two other prospects shows that.

If he were a Crosby or a McDavid, it would be different.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I recall the largest drop was within the first round, like driving a new car off the lot.

You mention a lot of variables, but really the key is going to be drafting as high as possible as there seems to be a lot less margin of error.

That's what it looked like subjectively: after the top 10 or so GMs were in crap shoot territory, and after 5OA, most of the players who were really going to make a difference had been selected -- if there were any to be had at all in that particular draft.

So the Canuck tank destination is more demanding: no finishing higher than 3rd last overall until they have 3 key pieces.

I don't know that the League can do much about it other than tinker with the odds in the lottery. The sad fact is that in any given draft, there are seldom more than half a dozen -- and often fewer -- players with the talent to form the core of a team that can have much playoff success, and the occurrence of any of them outside the top 10 seems almost random. And that randomness is of such low frequency that stockpiling 2 or 3 extra second rounders is unlikely to make a difference.

That segues to another topic that has interested me: team composition. Most Stanley Cup Champions seem anchored by at least 2 or 3 top-flight players, at least one of whom was drafted in the top 5. But by their second contract, such players are expensive, which is why we talk about the importance of your players on ELCs out-performing their contracts. Alternatively, do you think a successful NHL team could be built around having 4 of what would be second lines on a conventionally built team, i.e. instead of a $10 million centre, a $5 million centre, a $2 million centre, and a $1 million centre, have four $4.5 million centres (and proportionately paid wingers)? At least it would be a team construction that a management team could assemble without having to rely on lottery luck.

IMO you can win without an elite D man but usually not without an elite forward. Even though as Tops said, build from the net out this year has shown without top notch forwards you ain’t going far. We had a top 2 defender in the league on the team and it didn't move the dial.

I know there are a lot of variables that goes into the make up of a team but I would still pick a forward especially for this team in its current construction.

A rare (on this board) vote for weighting player position in draft choices. Very bold.

[Meds]

IMO you can win without an elite D man but usually not without an elite forward. Even though as Tops said, build from the net out this year has shown without top notch forwards you ain’t going far. We had a top 2 defender in the league on the team and it didn't move the dial.

I know there are a lot of variables that goes into the make up of a team but I would still pick a forward especially for this team in its current construction.

Florida: Ekblad/Jones ……….. Edmonton: Bouchard/Nurse
Florida: Ekblad …………………… Edmonton: Bouchard/Nurse
Vegas: Pietrangelo ……………… Panthers: Ekblad
Colorado: Makar …………………. Tampa: Hedman
Tampa: Hedman …………………. Montreal: Weber (injured)
Tampa: Hedman …………………. Dallas: Klingberg
St. Louis: Pietrangelo ………… Boston: McAvoy
Washington: Carlson ………….. Vegas: Theodore
Pittsburgh: Letang ……………… Nashville: Josi
Pittsburgh: Letang ……………… San Jose: Burns
Chicago: Keith ………………….. Tampa: Hedman
Los Angeles: Doughty ………… New York: McDonagh/Staal
Chicago: Keith …………………… Boston: Chara
Los Angeles: Doughty ……….. New Jersey: Larsson/Salvador
Boston: Chara ……………………. Vancouver: Edler

Not sure I agree with you Reefer. It is more common that the winner has an elite 1D that tips the scales. In the presence of 1D on both teams then the elite forwards tip the scales.

Only the last two seasons show us winning teams that didn’t have that 1D. But in both cases their best defensemen are much better blueliners than the losing team’s.

[Ronning's Ghost]

So the Canucks have already met with Verhoeff. Telling.

Given the role that character plays in draft pick development, and that personal goals play in prospects for re-signing, I'd like to see a lot more effort directed into understanding not just the talent package of the draft prospects, but also their personalities.

Do the rules allow flying draft prospects to Vancouver and giving them a tour?

Hughes was absolutely the right pick at that draft order rank, but maybe more trade value could have been leveraged if they had known sooner that there was no way he was re-signing as a UFA. And it would be useful to avoid a repeat of the Tryamkin experience. I know I just argued 2nd and 3rd round picks aren't worth much, but it would still be better to avoid wasting them.

[donlever]

NHL teams perform extensive character, psychological, and background evaluations on prospects, often utilizing scouts, psychologists, and interviews to assess maturity, work ethic, and resilience. These reviews help teams determine if a player fits their culture.....

Interviews: Direct questioning at the NHL Combine and throughout the season to gauge personality and maturity.

Background Checks: Scouting staff speak with coaches, teammates, teachers, and trainers to evaluate behavior off the ice.

Psychological Testing: Evaluation of competitive drive, mental toughness, and ability to handle pressure.

Focus Areas Key traits evaluated include leadership, adaptability, resilience, and passion for the game.