TGokou

I hate this whole thing about BPA. It's the stupidest thing in the world because everyone's BPA is completely subjective. Most people go by "consensus" rankings but if anyone has ever followed the draft most would know that after the first few picks no team ever follows consensus to a T. If that were the case there would be no intrigue with the draft at all. Further, depending on how teams prioritize their ranking, their BPA will vary widely. "Team A" may value overall point production and impact, Team B may value size, Team C may value D men, Team E may value future trade value. In the above example Team A may value small wingers highly because they may have a higher impact on the game from a offensive production. However, based on the trend in past drafts they will rarely get a D man unless they are in the top 5 of the draft. This is because D men typically take longer to develop and aren't as projectable as a forward and hence usually aren't rated as highly on media draft boards (they don't want to stick their neck out). Most people thought Moritz Seider was a reach at 6th overall when he was ranked in the mid teens. In a redraft he would most likely go second overall. As we all know unless that smallish winger turns out to be the next coming of Brad Marchand, they aren't valued all that highly from a trade perspective. Most wingers can be acquired with a mid first round pick or even second round pick +/- (Think Boeser/Garland/Mikaeyv) etc) Team E on the other hand may look at the overall value of the player once they develop and how easily they can trade them as a commodity. A second pairing defenseman or even a "mediocre" first pairing young d man are impossible to trade without minimum first round pick + + +. Hence even drafting a projectable defensive d man will command a pretty hefty return. Any offensive up side on top would significantly increase to 2 first round picks at minimum. They can then trade these valuable commodities for impact winger + additional value if needed. In summary it's important for people to realize that although Benson may have been rated higher because he was more projectable, Willander may command higher premium in the end even if both hit their top potential.

I stand by Willander as that was my choice when the Canucks picked. Oliver Moore would've been right after. If Simashev was still available I would've picked him over Willander.

I respect Buttons opinion but also don't know how he is projecting Simashev. Is it based on video? Based on points? Even though the points don't really show much he showed a much improved statistical profile in the latter half of the year and from short snippets of video I see a confident prospect who can dangle around players with his skating and puck handling abilities. Yes his shot is weak but is easily something he can work on plus he has frame to add power. To be totally honest his combination of size and skating is such a unicorn I almost don't see any way he doesn't become minimum top three defenseman. His potential to be a solid d man with 30-40 points is enough to justify an 11th overall pick. If he ends up being a Chris Tanev type player I'd still argue it's worth 11th overall

Funny how Simashev has all of sudden jumped up on people's radar. Lots of talk of moving down to get an additional pick. I remember few years ago there was lots of talk about Seider being available from 12-18 and in the end he went 6th. If Canucks are really high on Simashev (as I am) then you go with your pick. Don't worry about where rankings have him.

First time posting this year about prospects. I have to say Simashev really intrigues me. His offence may not be that great but he has such a great frame it's hard not to see him eventually be able to develop that shot. As for his skating and size and defensive ability I see him as a very high floor and high ceiling first pairing defensive D man in his prime. If his offensive capabilities ever start to bloom it'd be a homerun of a pick. I think the reason he's listed so low is because of the Russian factor and perceived lack of offensive ability but if the offensive ability was more refined he'd be easily ranked 5th-8th overall. I would not be upset at taking him at 11. If there are multiple picks the Canucks are comfortable with itd be better to see if they could trade down a few spots but I would not want to miss out on this guy.

Complete bloodbath in the markets today. Couldn't find any particular news for it so I'm wondering if it's a mass margin call of the leveraged crypto/stock market pickers.

It sounds like you still have a lot of learning to do but that's not a slight as we all had to learn from somewhere. Buying individual stocks will tell you a lot about your personality and whether you can change to become a better investor. It sounds like you bought lspd because it is the hot tsx stock. Yes it has a lot going for it but it's also heavily overvalued which means the volatility comes with the territory. If you cannot handle volatility then you shouldn't be in individual stocks let alone ones that have greatest capability of going down the most potentially. Btw I have nothing but good things to say about LSPD and I am invested in it and just bought More at the $120 level on the dip. However for one you have to learn how to avoid chasing hot stocks and then blame everything else if it doesn't go your way. Second of all is you need to learn to tune out most of the noise and there will be plenty and it happens to all stocks. If you keep tuning in to all the noise you will end up selling either far to early or even worse at a loss because you believed certain reports. Granted there are times when the news will affect when you should sell but relatively rare assuming you have a solid business. Also timing the market is a fools game especially for a green investor. Always stay in the market and if you believe a crash is coming it's acceptable to hold 10-20% in cash but never go fully out because 95% of the time you will be wrong or or you are right but too slow or unable to react when a crash happens (hence your comment about not going back into market even though we had a huge crash in 2020)

Alf is that you??

If you have a weak immune system I'd be more worried about contracting Covid than the normal person. However in the end only you can decide which you feel to be riskier to your health in the long run.

I too would like to understand people's vaccine hesitancy. There are some things I've heard that I can understand, mainly that there isn't enough studies but considering that a large population of the entire world is already vaccinated I would say the risk of adverse symptoms is relatively rare (in comparison to death by Covid). As for the "I have a right to choose grounds" I also get that but I don't believe that you can do so without having some of your privileges limited. Think back to before we had rules for wearing a seatbelt, drinking and driving and smoking in public. You technically have the right to do so but with severe consequences. The smoking in public is basically the same analogy in that your actions would affect the general public. If anything not getting vaccinated would lead to greater consequences than smoking in public as second hand smoke won't kill for at least several generations whereas Covid can kill within months. Unfortunately smoking in public is a visible deterrant as people know immediately if you are or not. I do not know if you are vaccinated or not unless you can prove it somehow and I would say 100% of us don't want to have to wear a mask for the rest of our lives so there has to be some compromise to protect the general public. Anyways I could see this being a very hotly contested subject so I suggest like the OP stated that we all remain respectful and not attack each other's post and only state our opinions and facts and reasons without tying anyone else's post into theirs. Trying to convince other posters at this point is futile and will only lead to negativity.

I've been loosely following the situation and even though I am invested in Chinese tech I don't see how it would affect them long term even with a default. China may allow them to default but they are not in a situation where they want to allow systemic contagion to spread so I expect China to step up to the plate somehow. In the meantime I expect some massive volatility in my holdings but that is also why I continue to average down as necessary.

How will you determine when to go back in? Arbitrary % decline or technical signal? While I expect there to be somewhat of a decline I'm not convinced it will be a major crash. Maybe 5-10% similar to last year. I do have some cash sitting on the sidelines but still remain nearly fully invested. If it gets down 10% I will likely invest my remaining cash. I am out of most speculative stocks with most of my holdings in blue chip stocks that should be able to at least hold their own or provide me with decent divy to hold and wait. I also have a large part of my portfolio in chinese tech stocks for better or for worse and am willing to hold and potentially buy more with even more of a pullback.

If you've never invested before I highly suggest you start with ETFs, at least for majority of your portfolio. I never recommend starting with stocks unless you are willing to lose most of it. Early on in your investing career your biggest problem will be understanding your own investing personality and not selling when things go to hell or buying when markets are at all time highs and not knowing the 'true' reason for buying. Buying a company just because you 'believe' in it is not good enough. You need to be able to do your own due diligence and research and by that I mean looking through financial statements, learning about fundamental analysis and value investing and also learning about technical analysis. Also it's helpful to learn about cyclical stocks and understanding that some companies will have their time in the sun and then fade away for many years. Having said all that, to answer your two questions I'm not sure I feel very positive about Cineplex until they can prove that A. Movie goers will want to come back and B. Their subscription will actually generate a large enough following. Personally I feel there are much better stocks to own at this moment. LSPD is very overvalued from fundamental analysis but as tech stocks have proven time and time again (at least for the last 10 years or so) valuation doesn't matter as long as a company can grow into it. So far they are firing on all cylinders and it doesn't look it will stumble anytime soon. However, be prepared for some significant volatility on it but that's pretty par for the course.

He basically alluded to the birthdate being a pretty big factor in his selections.

Yawn. Just because a search doesn't have a name in it doesn't mean I'm not talking about that person. Most of my posts are quoting someone else. Here is the Caufield pick. 2019 NHL Entry Draft in Vancouver, BC in Prospects / In the System Posted June 8, 2019 Same here. Everyone likes to make excuses for why he won't get be a good player. Ie. Skating, size, playoffs etc. His elite talent will shine through regardless of his 'short'comings. I expect his floor to be 25 goals and potentially upwards of 40 goals in his prime as his upside. Here are some posts about Dobson: Report 2018 NHL Entry Draft in Prospects / In the System Posted June 2, 2018 Agreed. I think 30 points is his floor... 2018 NHL Entry Draft in Prospects / In the System Posted June 24, 2018 Dobson was my guy but I had Hughes right behind. Time will tell who will be the better defenseman but I hope both can succeed to do well in this league. I couldn't find much on Pettersson so I'm gonna let you take the win on that one. I actually didn't post much that draft which is unlike me. Based on my few posts though if Makar had been available I would've picked him. This is what I had to say about the Virtanen draft and picking Ehlers: Im a little warmer to the idea of drafting Virtanen. It's not because he has a great shot, skating or tenacity. The main reason I pick Virtanen over the other prospects is that I see him at worst a really good 3rd line hockey player but most likely an upside of 2nd line winger, MAYBE a 1st line winger...hence a really safe pick. Also what intrigues me the most is that he is one of the youngest of his draft class and will have ample time to hone his skill. I think Virtanen is maybe more of a project than some of the other prospects, and I expect him to take minimum 3 years to make it to the NHL and should not be rushed. I still think his potential upside is less than Ehlers and comparable with Ritchie but is most likely the safest pick of the three. I pick Ehlers if I want the most exciting game-breaker and score 70 + points. He will instantly increase the speed of the team and would likely be the team's leading scorer after the Sedins retire/fade. Would be an instant fan-favourite. On the other hand, I don't see him as a total bust but maybe 20g 20a 40 point scorer playing on second line at worst(?)

Congrats and great pick with NIO. I remember you putting it out there that you bought it. Do/did you have stop losses on any of those? Did you ride CCIV on the way down?

I am normally quite risk averse when it comes to speculative names. I've been blown up a few times when I was much younger so I have an aversion to speculative names even though they've had tremendous runs (think Marijuana stocks, crypto etc). Thought I would jump in this year just because I could afford to but it immediately bit me in the butt (back in January-Feburary). If it were not for those speculative losses I'd probably be just under 20% returns across my entire portfolio since February. Instead I'll have to settle for beating the market by a few % lol.

Yes I was very stoked as I thought it was a great pick that you shoot for the fence based on potential.

Because his sample size is so small you have a valid point. I prefer to discount his production. Do I think he is a 2ppg player? Probably not and he did play on a very good team which may have inflated his totals. However, even if he were rated around 1.5-1.6 ppg that would still be a top 3-7 pick most seasons.

How are my rankings cherry picked? These were the people I had ranked prior to the draft and if you want to search the previous draft history threads you'll see I pounded the table on most of these guys. Nothing to hide here. As I already explained in my post I mainly scout based on stat analytics and this years draft hasn't really provided me with much to work with. Most of the projected high draft picks are in the NCAA (older draft players) with the rest mostly in leagues across seas. That's why I don't really have a projected ranking of each player. I have a few players I'd like to have but I can't say I have a lot of conviction in my guesses. My Dobson pick can also be seen in my previous posts and l don't understand how you can say I am using 20/20 hindsight. I could've said I picked Hughes but I didn't because that wasn't my pick regardless of whether he was available or not. I had Dobson higher than Hughes on my draft board. Whether he turns out to be better or not is irrelevant as I only meant to post it as 'my pick'. Caufield's small size was a 'concern' but his stat line left me no doubt. If he were any taller for sure he would've been top 3 but because he was on the 'smaller' side I had him ranked around the 8-9 spot.

I apply this theory to both forwards and defensemen. I have just noticed a more consistent trend within defensemen. I typically bias drafting a forward with the high 1st round pick because I find there is a higher bust/2nd pairing potential with defenseman. With a late round 1st or 2nd round pick I typically bias towards drafting defensemen as there are many top pairing defensemen drafted in that range based on history. This is where I find it benefits if you skew towards the late birthdays as you can find gems in this area that were bypassed in the 1st round because they haven't yet shown the ability to defend at a high level. In case you were wondering I have compared many players and based on the early - late birthday stats I find the general statline is most players tend to improve 20-30% on their stats in that time frame. In other words let's say a player born in July has 40 pts in any given league. I would multiply that by 1.25x to give a comparable to a player born in October-December. Full disclosure, I have often missed some really good players in my draft ranking because I rank the early birthdays too low. This is why Adam Gaudette and Tyler Madden never would've shown up on my radar. Here are some examples of who I would have drafted based on my criteria. 2014 Nikolaj Ehlers 2015 I did not have a pick this year (don't remember why) 2016 Matthew Tkachuk 2017 Elias Pettersson (Note : Pettersson was an early birthday but his Allvenskan stats were too good to ignore) - Gabe Vilardi was also very high based on my criteria but the injuries scared me off 2018 - Noah Dobson - Dobson's birthday falls in January so I don't deduct him or give him an advantage. Right now Quinn Hughes looks like the better choice although that could still change as he's looked really good with the Islanders. 2019 - I believe I had forgotten that Podkolzin was available and really wanted Caufield. Podkolzin is a June birthday but his stats scared me off as I find it very difficult to run stats if there are no stats to work off of. This is where my analytics can easily fall short. I would also argue it doesn't really help for this year either as the sample size is too small in most cases. 2019 - 2nd round - Nicholas Robertson was my #1 choice here because he was literally 4 days away from being 2020 eligible. Early returns suggest Hoglander will be the better choice here. 2020 - No 1st or 2nd round pick so I had no interest in the draft 2021 - Like I said the stats are too small of a sample size to make a great selection here. Instead I will predict who might be the best player of the draft and I'm going to say Luke Hughes based on his production and birthday. I would also highly rate Pastujov based on the same criteria although I suspect he will be drafted in the teens. Edit: I also have Corson Ceulemans rated highly because of this criteria.

For sure this is one of the main reasons why late birthdays have a disadvantage against their early birthday peers. I would be particularly wary of drafting a big player that has a early birthday as that means they have the size discrepancy and the age difference working for them which will be less prevalent going forward. Usually these players are drafted in the top 10 as they've proven more but I always find it more on the risky size unless the discrepancy between the players are so large it cant be overcome by just the early-late birthday.

Yes you are correct. In that case I could make some relevance for him going slightly higher than where they were drafted. That's why I had him going from 7-12 range. Of course there will always be other factors which I have not considered and that's where scouting would come in. My line of thinking can only place their potential based on their statistics. Most players don't deviate very far from there. However its the intangibles such as heart, internal motivation and commitment to fitness etc. that will really set a player apart. Does Johnson have more of this than say Tyson Jost or an Alex Newhook? That is not my specialty.

I've had this theory since probably 2015. Take a look at the top defensemen of the last 20 years. Yes there are gonna be some great defensemen born in the "low" potential category. Quick analysis suggests Quinn Hughes and Cale Makar. However if you also look at where these defensemen were drafted you'll notice majority of them were top 10 picks. Vast majority of the good defensemen outside of the top 10 are born in the late birthday "high potential" category. It's not really a theory anymore. Recent scouting analytics seem to suggest scouts are paying more attention to this as they tend to put a premium on this high potential category. If anything I think they've gone too far to the other side and our scouts have been able to unearth gems such as Tyler Madden, Adam Gaudette , even Quinn Hughes who should've gone higher but perhaps didn't because their potential was lower.

Sure you could say he's a year younger. I say he's closer to a year older. Fact remains that those born in September - January of their draft year tend to have a lower upside potential compared to their draft eligible peers drafted April - August. This is particularly pronounced with top pairing defensemen in the NHL for whatever reason. If you don't believe me pull a random assortment of the best defensemen in the league and I guarantee you a high probability will be from those birth month I highlighted. I find this indicator less reliable for forwards but still applies.