2019 NHL ENTRY DRAFT - Vancouver

[2Fingers]

If it's like most of the recent years, the rankings will take "some" pretty radical shifts on some player projections.
June 21 is an eternity away.

And then after the first 2 - 3 it can goo all crazy and they go off the board.

[Diehard1]

the few who are on the extreme of one side are mostly just here to push buttons of other posters.

Sorry fixed for accuracy. A “mod” just confirmed it

Strange loves him some Jimbo!

[Strangelove]

Whatever Clifford, what about my evidence that you are no more scientific than anyone here.

You like to think you're smarter than the rest, when you're actually just operating in a different kind of faith.

A negative faith.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a wiccan a few weeks ago...

[Strangelove]

Strange loves him some Jimbo!

Gotta love Jimbro...

[Diehard1]

I think we'll see a few guys move up and down after the under 18's. Scouts love to base judgments on 1 tournament for whatever reason.

You've explained why it's dangerous (players, especially young players, can be very inconsistent, and you want to avoid basing decisions on small sample sizes) but i'd guess that the reason the scouts are eager to assess players based on this tournament is that it is hard to compare players across different leagues, facing different competition, and with such different qualities of teammates. Head to head, and with higher quality teammates, I suspect it's easier to compare top prospects.

Disclaimer: in addition to not being a hockey management genius, I'm not a hockey scouting genius.

Agreed, for a guy like Krebs and Newhook it's especially difficult. Krebs was miles ahead of the next best player on Kootenay, to an almost laughable point, while Newhook plays in the BCHL which isn't the greatest of leagues to test oneself. Those guys need a good U18, while other guys like Dach and Byram won't be there as they'll likely still be in the playoffs. Still, I guess it's a decent way to get a read on these kids, just not something that would make or break a pick for me.

[Ronning's Ghost]

I'm talking about your two non-testable hypotheses here Cliffy:

viewtopic.php?p=337317#p337317

You yourself called them "untestable hypotheticals".

Deacon Cliffy of the Church of the Poison Mind...

Yes, yes, I did, because that's what they are. Untestable, speculative hypotheticals seem to be standard fare on hockey message boards. For example:

That cap-hit would have RUINED us.''...

This can't be overstated: It would have R U I N E D your Vancouver Canucks.

It would have derailed the team Gillis was putting together

... would have changed Canuck history for the worse.

http://canuckscorner.com/forums/viewtop ... se#p285995

But there's a difference between speculating on what might have been, and concrete assertions about what is, or predictions about what will be. The latter are testable, and you provided us with an excellent example: "The rebuild is going well. The success of the rebuild will be indicated by result X at time Y". And then, when time Y arrives, we can compare how well our theory aligns with our observations. Again, I commend you on proposing such a concrete, objective test, and I honestly had no intention of "hammering" you when the results did not bear it out, but you're the one attacking me.

Does the "blind faith" in Benning concept bother you? You've had no trouble admitting to it before. I've offered multiple observable tests that would force me to relinquish my skepticism of Benning's plan, so I think it's pretty clear I'm not operating on faith.

[Diehard1]

I watched the Saskatoon Prince Albert playoff game yesterday, I must admit - Kirby Dach is a nice player. I can see why the scouts like him. After that viewing I can’t see him still being around by the time we are picking

You may be right, but Dach does this - amazing play one game, then disappears for 3. It's his biggest criticism.

I think we'll see a few guys move up and down after the under 18's. Scouts love to base judgments on 1 tournament for whatever reason.

Well he's only 18 & 6'4? still pretty awesome he's playing this well even in the playoffs, plus he was great at the Hlinka Gretzky Cup.
Let Dach play his full 4 junior seasons like Getzlaf did with half a season in the AHL and Dach could be a dominant force in the NHL.

But yeah he likely goes #5 ish.

3 Vasili Podkolzin
4 Bowen Byram
5 Kirby Dach
6 Alex Turcotte (Wisconsin)
7 Dylan Cozens
8 Trevor Zegras (Boston U)

In our range if the Canucks don't win any of the top 3 overall draft lottery picks once again :
Peyton Krebs, Matthew Boldy (Boston College), Alex Newhook (Boston College)

Dark horses for Barrett Hayton type jump is Zegras, a thinner center 6'0-168lbs, but he plays a gritty/agitating game, goes to the dangerous areas with aplomb, two-way ability, combined with a lot of skill.

Broberg some team in the top 10 will take him, a 6'3, speedy Swedish dman will be enticing, & should have a bigger offensive production next season.

Dach is a big boy and supposedly just had a growth spurt, so yep it's realistic to expect he will fill out, get more coordinated and improve. The question is, how much will that happen? It's possible he won't get more coordinated and will be an average speed skater his whole career. I'm not sure how you figure out if this will happen or not, but it's a very tough call for a scout and GM to make.

Guys like Krebs, Zegras, Turcotte, Boldy, etc look about the height they are going to be, so the coordination they already have should stay and they are likely easier to project. If it works out for Dach he's a 6'4" Getzlaf though, and that's invaluable.

Broberg I'm not a huge fan of - all the tools and no toolbox, his hockey sense isn't good even if his skating is very strong.

Zegras could be a riser, but could say the same for Turcotte, Boldy, Krebs, Dach, Cozens, etc - it's really difficult to figure out what will happen this year after pick 2.

[Strangelove]

I'm talking about your two non-testable hypotheses here Cliffy:

viewtopic.php?p=337317#p337317

You yourself called them "untestable hypotheticals".

Deacon Cliffy of the Church of the Poison Mind...

Yes, yes, I did, because that's what they are. Untestable, speculative hypotheticals seem to be standard fare on hockey message boards. For example:

That cap-hit would have RUINED us.''...

This can't be overstated: It would have R U I N E D your Vancouver Canucks.

It would have derailed the team Gillis was putting together

... would have changed Canuck history for the worse.

http://canuckscorner.com/forums/viewtop ... se#p285995

But there's a difference between speculating on what might have been, and concrete assertions about what is, or predictions about what will be. The latter are testable, and you provided us with an excellent example: "The rebuild is going well. The success of the rebuild will be indicated by result X at time Y". And then, when time Y arrives, we can compare how well our theory aligns with our observations. Again, I commend you on proposing such a concrete, objective test, and I honestly had no intention of "hammering" you when the results did not bear it out, but you're the one attacking me.

Does the "blind faith" in Benning concept bother you? You've had no trouble admitting to it before. I've offered multiple observable tests that would force me to relinquish my skepticism of Benning's plan, so I think it's pretty clear I'm not operating on faith.

WTF! You yourself called these two most recent ones "untestable hypottheticals" !

And as I said, the one you dug up from the past was an unrealistic one.

You're nutty.

"Here's a test, if the moon blows up tonight it proves we are decended from aliens" - Cliffy's next "test".

Cliffy the scientist who uses only reason.

Now you're dredging up stuff from the distant past, in an effort no doubt to distract...

Okay, once upon a time I was indulging your silly 'How Do We Prove Benning is a Genius' game.

(you now keep trying to change the name of that game to 'Is the Rebuild Going Well' for intellectually dishonest reasons)

You ARE operating on faith when you suggest Jimmy is a lousy GM based upon non-testable hypotheses.

(negative faith and you're so all in, you're freaking evangelistic about it)

When you use hypotheses which can never be tested to slam GMJB

... well that certainly doesn't qualify as "reason" now does it?

You claimed you're using reason to doubt Benning, while your opponents are using faith to believe in him.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT STEAMING LOAD STINKS!!

BTW I've gone on about that potentially-ruinous $20M offer to Sundin a few times.

Gillis would not have been able to build the team he did if that offer was accepted.

(not enough money left to sign everyone he eventually signed)

But we weren't talking about me and how much reason I use.

We were talking about YOU and how much reason YOU use.

And why were we doing that?

Because YOU claimed to be using reason as opposed to your opponents who you claim use only faith.

I didn't, he didn't, she didn't... nope, only YOU claimed to be Mr Reason there Clifford J Ronning!

So we were talking about YOU and YOUR claim to fame.

Well I just proved you are full of yourself in that regard, you're welcome and have a pleasant evening...

[ESQ]

Do you really find the proposition that a veteran player would be worth more when one year younger and with one more year under contract to be unreasonable?

I don't particularly enjoy engaging with ad hominem ("blind faith" ), holier-than-thou debating, but what you've written is a complete straw man.

You gave concrete examples of what Benning "should have" done or gotten. in an intellectually-honest, logical debate, you don't forget to mention things like Hamhuis was injured for 2 months prior to the deadline. YOU said:

if he'd started leaning on Hamhuis earlier, he might have been able to get an acceptable return

Not only is that armchair GM'ing based on no facts, but it isn't logical - Hamhuis wasn't playing and had lost 10 pounds of muscle while eating through a straw for 2 months.

In an intellectually-honest, logical debate, you don't forget to mention things like Bieksa missed 6 weeks prior to the TDD in his last year. Or that the year prior to his trade, he'd gone from a 44-point dman to a 24-point dman in 2 seasons. Oh, and he was also injured the month leading up to the TDD that year too.

So, in answer to your straw-man, a veteran player MAY be worth more when one year younger, but it depends on pesky things like facts and the real-world situation of that player.

Is there anything more you'd like to say about the Bieksa trade in the 2019 NHL Entry Draft thread?

Oh! I got one - Benning should just win the draft lottery this year. That's the logical thing to do

[Strangelove]

Oh! I got one - Benning should just win the draft lottery this year. That's the logical thing to do

NOW you're using reason rather than faith!

[Blob Mckenzie]

the few who are on the extreme of one side are mostly just here to push buttons of other posters.

Sorry fixed for accuracy. A “mod” just confirmed it

Strange loves him some Jimbo!

I think he likes a few things.

Full marks to the posters exposing Doc in this thread.

What was it? “Nailing Jello to a wall”

Lmfao

[Strangelove]

Thank you for your unbiased assessment as always Blob!

Reason, not faith, attaboy...

[Blob Mckenzie]

Thank you for your unbiased assessment as always Blob!

Reason, not faith, attaboy...

Buds. I asked you if there were ANY Elmer moves you didn’t like. Draft picks, signings, trades whatever. ... you responded with the Sbisa signing and then you walked it back.

Are we to believe that Elmer hasn’t made a single error regarding draft picks, signings or trades according to you?

[Strangelove]

Thank you for your unbiased assessment as always Blob!

Reason, not faith, attaboy...

Buds. I asked you if there were ANY Elmer moves you didn’t like. Draft picks, signings, trades whatever. ... you responded with the Sbisa signing and then you walked it back.

Are we to believe that Elmer hasn’t made a single error regarding draft picks, signings or trades according to you?

Hey man, don't rub my nose in it.

Yes I accused Jimmy of being wrong and yes it turned out he was right.

I feel just terrible about that false accusation, as any decent person would, nothing else to say...

[Blob Mckenzie]

He wasn’t right and you’ve owned it. Good on you, take a bow

Congrats you aren’t the worlds best troll

Maybe top 10 though