CanucksCorner.com Forums

...back to what.

Mushyocrity?

McKenna's playmaking on full display at the WJC pre-tourney vs Sweden. Imagine us getting a top-level play-driving winger like a Kane, Kucherov or Kaprizov? Boner.

Verhoeff looks YUGE.

Yeah - I think McKenna is the type of prospect you just take if they are on the board and don't overthink. I'd love to have Verhoeff or Stenberg as a consolation prize too, so a bottom five finish and lukewarm luck at the draft lottery (seems achievable!) could really fast track a rebuild.

After that, I hope we can pick up another first because this seems to be a good draft class for big centers and defensemen, and as much as I like the principle of "best pick available" I think it's pretty clear in the modern NHL that if you draft a team full of high skill wingers and waterbug puckmovers you are going to be working from a position of weakness when it's time to make trades and address your team's obvious disadvantages.

A good hockey team is always going to need big, physical, tough players and so much the better if they can play up the lineup and possess some leadership qualities - and nobody wants to trade these guys, ever.

dbr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 8:38 am Yeah - I think McKenna is the type of prospect you just take if they are on the board and don't overthink. I'd love to have Verhoeff or Stenberg as a consolation prize too, so a bottom five finish and lukewarm luck at the draft lottery (seems achievable!) could really fast track a rebuild.

After that, I hope we can pick up another first because this seems to be a good draft class for big centers and defensemen, and as much as I like the principle of "best pick available" I think it's pretty clear in the modern NHL that if you draft a team full of high skill wingers and waterbug puckmovers you are going to be working from a position of weakness when it's time to make trades and address your team's obvious disadvantages.

A good hockey team is always going to need big, physical, tough players and so much the better if they can play up the lineup and possess some leadership qualities - and nobody wants to trade these guys, ever.

Waterbugs and puck movers and high skilled wingers don't have a lot of trade value if they aren't exceptional. If they are, they get the equivalent of 4 1sts. Or they can win championships (consider Point, Kucherov, Stamkos, none of whom play big or physical).

The good but not exceptional guys who are big or play big (the latter being more important so long as you aren't pint sized) tend to have more trade value, I think that's a totally fair point. Especially if they can skate. And some of that is because they tend to have more floors to fall to -- levels below the ceiling that still provide considerable NHL value.

Your point is illustrated by a gut like Thomas Vanek -- slow, skilled, winger, had size but didn't use it except to shield the puck -- he was having a fine season with the Canucks and was traded at the deadline for Tyler Motte -- a guy that had been waived previously (but didn't pass through) and by that time in his career had a bottom 6 ceiling (and to be fair, he did a good job in that role, but to be objective, these are guys you can land without a premium every offseason -- as he would learn when he became a free agent with unrealistic expectations). I saw this as the equivalent of a 3rd rounder max at the time -- a second rounder may not have a better chance of success than Motte, but those who succeed are far more likely to have a bigger impact. And yet Sherwood? I could be wrong, but I think if he stays healthy, the Canucks are getting a first. I don't know of a single playoff (or playoff race) team that couldn't find a place for him that wouldn't improve their team, perhaps significantly. (That's not the case with a top 6 winger when you are comfortable with your top 6). He seems made for the playoffs -- not just the hits, but the motor, the puck battles, the default to play simply (which is more important as the refs allow them the "play". And as an aside, Sherwood isn't good at playing unsimply, see Sherwood on the power play)).

But I do want to add a little caution to the idea that the "modern NHL" tells us what success looks like in the 3-15 years after this draft -- the years these mid-to-late first rounders and after will make their impact (except the unicorns that start sooner). I think the game changes over time, and it is almost imperceptible from year to year, as does the population of players. But managements that get on bandwagons, usually mimicking what most recently showed success. As I've posted here before, "be like" instead of "be a team that can beat" the last champion generally results in being a lesser version of that better team -- and that's the best case scenario.

To be clear, the Florida identity is a type of team that typically has more success since video game hockey and locker room cigarettes ended with the post 1994SCF lock out. But it isn't the only way to win, and while I think it stands a good chance of remaining a great team identity well into the future, managements shouldn't get so wedded to this at the draft table that they can't recognize when there's a chance to take advantage of a path-dependent market that is undervaluing the skills that still contribute and maybe even will be the model. Which is how Hughes fell. And why no one really talked up Makar as a #1 pick in a draft without a clear #1. And how Buium fell. (And I know, Buium hasn't proven anything yet, and I am sure that there are examples of other guys who fell because they didn't fit the model -- and then failed because they couldn't do the things the model predicted they couldn't do).

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.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 8:13 pm McKenna's playmaking on full display at the WJC pre-tourney vs Sweden. Imagine us getting a top-level play-driving winger like a Kane, Kucherov or Kaprizov? Boner.

Verhoeff looks YUGE.

Where did you see that game?

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 11:14 am

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Wed Dec 17, 2025 8:13 pm McKenna's playmaking on full display at the WJC pre-tourney vs Sweden. Imagine us getting a top-level play-driving winger like a Kane, Kucherov or Kaprizov? Boner.

Verhoeff looks YUGE.

Where did you see that game?

TSN

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 am 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?

Just watched some game highlights and clips.

Not comprehensive scouting by any means, but you can see the potential in some of these guys... Team Sweden included.

(Mëds reaction: Noooooo!!!)

dbr wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 8:38 am Yeah - I think McKenna is the type of prospect you just take if they are on the board and don't overthink. I'd love to have Verhoeff or Stenberg as a consolation prize too, so a bottom five finish and lukewarm luck at the draft lottery (seems achievable!) could really fast track a rebuild.

After that, I hope we can pick up another first because this seems to be a good draft class for big centers and defensemen, and as much as I like the principle of "best pick available" I think it's pretty clear in the modern NHL that if you draft a team full of high skill wingers and waterbug puckmovers you are going to be working from a position of weakness when it's time to make trades and address your team's obvious disadvantages.

A good hockey team is always going to need big, physical, tough players and so much the better if they can play up the lineup and possess some leadership qualities - and nobody wants to trade these guys, ever.

Florida: Barkov, Ekblad/Jones, Bobrovsky
Vegas: Eichel, Pietrangelo, Hill
Colorado: MacKinnon, Makar, Kuemper
Tampa Bay: Point/Stamkos, Hedman, Vasilevskiy
St. Louis: O'Reilly, Pietrangelo, Binnington
Washington: Kuznetsov/Backstrom, Carlson, Holtby
Pittsburgh: Crosby/Malkin, Letang, Fleury/Murray
Chicago: Toews, Keith, Crawford
Los Angeles: Kopitar, Doughty, Quick

While there are the occasional exceptions to the rule, contending teams always seem to have a dominant 1C, a stud on the top-pairing, and consistent goaltending. The only goaltenders on that list to win a Vezina are Bobs, Vasilevskiy, and Holtby. None of them won it in the year they hoisted the Cup, and Bobs was 7 years removed from that level of play.

Obviously there are guys I didn't include that were larger contributors, like Kucherov and Kane for example. Also, O'Reilly and Kuznetsov, are not elite 1C's, the latter really only had a season or two, and one playoff run, at that level of play, and the former has never been that type of scorer, but he elevates in the playoffs and was a bitch to play against at both ends of the ice. My point is the construction of the team revolves around those 3 spots with the least weight on the goaltender in terms them being considered "elite".

The goaltending does not need to be Hellebuyck/Vasilevskiy level. It helps, obviously, but the other two positions are more important, and Vezina-nominee goaltending is less critical if the rest of the roster is balanced out. The goaltender just needs to be someone who is a consistent NHL starter (those level of players will come up with some big moments when needed, but the need is less because the team in front is better).

Edmonton is an example of this. They didn't fail the past two SCF's because of goaltending, they failed because of team construction, notably the blueline. Replace Bouchard and Nurse with players who contribute less offensively, but can actually be relied upon in their own end, and Edmonton wins one with Stewart in net.

I guess what I'm saying (maybe we both are?) is that you prioritize with both talent/ceiling and position in mind. Unless you are drafting a winger that has a very probable Kucherov/Kane ceiling, you should be taking the best C or D available. And the focus should be on what he does in big games, and in the playoffs, because if he doesn't hit the projected ceiling on the regular, his value at the trade deadline could be premium and allow for a "re-roll of better odds" in an upcoming draft. Like, if you end up with a center who plays like Elias Pettersson (2023-24), you will probably be a lock for a post-season spot, but you won't get out of the 1st couple of rounds. However, if you get a ROR, then maybe you finish in, or just above, wildcard territory, but you have a beast that changes games in the post-season even without being a 1.0 PPG guy (of which there are few in the post-season).

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 amAnd 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.

Great post and I generally can't disagree, and yeah for 3-15 years out we absolutely do need exceptional players.

I guess where I am coming from is the certainty that the franchise is not going to attempt a full "fill up the cupboards" rebuild and will likely have little or no margin for error - if the guy who falls to you is Quinn Hughes you've got to take him and if he's Pavel Zadina you've got to stick to your plan and take someone else who has to pan out.. so they are going to have to find a way to tick all of these boxes in ~2 years before the Aquilinis start pointing to the balance sheet.

Carl Yagro wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 11:37 am Just watched some game highlights and clips.

Not comprehensive scouting by any means, but you can see the potential in some of these guys... Team Sweden included.

(Mëds reaction: Noooooo!!!)

Lol. This is every year it seems like. Sweden comes in, generates loads of hype in the exhibition and round-robin, and then ultimately fails in the medal rounds. They've won 2 gold medals, none since 2012. They have actually won a medal in 10 of the past 18 tournaments, which isn't bad.....Canada has only won 2 more than them in that span. However, 7 of ours are gold medals compared to 1 for Sweden.

My issue with Swedes (most European and Russian players) is not their skill level.....many of them have that in spades. It is their disappearing act in the playoffs, too many of them tear it up in contract years and then quickly regress. There is just an inability for them to "grab another gear" after the paycheques stop in mid-April. I just don't trust them to be the go-to leaders on a team.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 am It wouldn't bother me at all if the Canucks approach to drafting (hopefully) 3 first rounders next summer is ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling.

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 11:32 am Am I reading your intent correctly in that when you say "ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling", you are meaning BPA, BPA, and BPA?

I strongly prefer the description "ceiling" because it is much more specific than BPA.

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 12:17 pm you prioritize with both talent/ceiling and position in mind. Unless you are drafting a winger that has a very probable Kucherov/Kane ceiling, you should be taking the best C or D available. And the focus should be on what he does in big games, and in the playoffs, because if he doesn't hit the projected ceiling on the regular, his value at the trade deadline could be premium and allow for a "re-roll of better odds" in an upcoming draft. Like, if you end up with a center who plays like Elias Pettersson (2023-24), you will probably be a lock for a post-season spot, but you won't get out of the 1st couple of rounds. However, if you get a ROR, then maybe you finish in, or just above, wildcard territory, but you have a beast that changes games in the post-season even without being a 1.0 PPG guy (of which there are few in the post-season).

So for example, as Mëds elaborates here, position and playing style could be factors, if trade value factors into your definition of "best".

For the next two drafts, I do think that the Canucks need to prioritize ceiling. There just aren't enough players in the organization with the talent levels that a team needs to make an impact, so they need to take them at whatever position, and with whatever package and profile, that they can find them, and try to fill in a supporting cast later. This is the penalty of not stockpiling assets in a planned rebuild.

As a contrast of potential interest to Canucks fans, I think that if Quinn had defined BPA as "highest floor" back in '90, that would have been enough of a difference from what they took for them to win in '94.

For myself I think I prefer BPA because it usually encapsulates (at least my interpretation of it) the highest ceiling AND floor.

For example, I think Jake Virtanen had an exceptionally high ceiling, but unfortunately his floor was at the level of his skate blades and he never really got off of it. Trade value is basement level and team utility matches that. Nail Yakupov may be an even better example of this.

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.

Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 6:41 pm For myself I think I prefer BPA because it usually encapsulates (at least my interpretation of it) the highest ceiling AND floor.

My point was that those can be different things.

You have two potential picks on the board. As near as anyone can tell when projecting the careers of 18 year-olds:

Pick A has a 50% chance of being a perennial all-star, and a 50% chance of being a bust, playing in Europe, if at all. (very high ceiling, very low floor)

Pick B has a 95% of a long NHL career. But he projects to be at most a slightly-better-than-average top 6 winger, or a very good top 9 winger. (low-ish ceiling, high floor)

All else being equal, which is the "best" player available? I submit that it depends on what your franchise needs.

So, in my example -- assuming he isn't blessed with foresight, and has to rely on the data that everyone else could see at the time -- Quinn would have been better off drafting Primeau and Weight (or Sanderson).

95%?

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