WestlockWarrior Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yesterday's trade should serve as a reminder on which strategy to implement during a draft. That strategy should always be draft the best player available and not team needs and what we lack in the prospect cabinet. Nashville drafted Jones at 4th overall even though they had an abundance of Dmen such as Weber, Josi, Ellis, Ekholm, Klein at the time. They could have adult said we lack offence and centres and draft Monahan, Lindholm or Nichuskin instead who were all regarded as top 10 in their draft year. Fast forward to today and they trade Jones for a Franchise Centre and fill their organizational need. Second example is the Edmonton Oilers. It is widely believed they had Barzal as best player available when they were on the clock w. The 16th overall pick. Edmonton trades the pick because they feel they are stacked down the middle w. Mc, Drai, RNH. Big mistake ! After that WJC Barzal would have been a massive bargaining chip for the Oilers to acquire a Dman. Certainly someone better than Reinhart. Had they drafted Barzal it would also give them organizational depth to trade RNH. Instead Oil is still looking for top pairing D. I bring this up because it's obvious that the Canucks biggest organizational need is yound D. Chuchryn will probably be available for when are drafting in the top 6. However I think it would be a big mistake to pass on players like Laine or Puljujarvi just to draft Chuchryn who fits the need. Always draft Best player available !! If they feel Chuchryn is better than the FiNs then I can live w. That. But don't draft Chuchryun at number 2 or 3 because we need him. Thoughts. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Fig Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Starvi for Puljujarvi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 We're not going to get any of these guys, so it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Chychrun or Fire Linden and Benning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 BPA over organizational need? Hmm....Up until this year I'd have said Edmonton Florida Arizona and Buffalo say hi. But Florida is doing ok, Buffalo took their organizational need a few years in a row thanks to a massive glut of picks and Arizona did the same We have needs that the BPA won't fix on the wings and blueline. Should we be lucky enough to draft the BPA at those positions for our draft position I am all for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Nashville took Jones because he was projected to go top-2. But Florida needed a center (Barkov) and Tampa Bay had selected Koekkoek 10th overall a year earlier and Drouin was too pretty to pass up. Seth Jones "fell" to the at fourth and it would have been foolish to take anybody else. He was so good that they ignored orginizational need to pick him, not because they wanted BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Point taken. The example of the Oilers is pathetically true. Kim Jong Lowe has f'ed up the Oil for a decade. Your mother would have drafted better than those clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I just think if we're not drafting top 5 and someone like Juolevi or Fabbro is available over someone who dropped a bit from their draft position ranking we take our need not the BPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 6 minutes ago, YEGCanuck said: Point taken. The example of the Oilers is pathetically true. Kim Jong Lowe has f'ed up the Oil for a decade. Your mother would have drafted better than those clowns. EDM did draft BPA instead of taking defensemen when that was their need. As a result they are ridiculed for poor drafting. Yet the OP is advocating exactly what they did and demanding it be declared the only way to draft. So which is it again? BPA or organizational need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 juolevi would be a great pickup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 25 minutes ago, WestlockWarrior said: Yesterday's trade should serve as a reminder on which strategy to implement during a draft. That strategy should always be draft the best player available and not team needs and what we lack in the prospect cabinet. Nashville drafted Jones at 4th overall even though they had an abundance of Dmen such as Weber, Josi, Ellis, Ekholm, Klein at the time. They could have adult said we lack offence and centres and draft Monahan, Lindholm or Nichuskin instead who were all regarded as top 10 in their draft year. Fast forward to today and they trade Jones for a Franchise Centre and fill their organizational need. Second example is the Edmonton Oilers. It is widely believed they had Barzal as best player available when they were on the clock w. The 16th overall pick. Edmonton trades the pick because they feel they are stacked down the middle w. Mc, Drai, RNH. Big mistake ! After that WJC Barzal would have been a massive bargaining chip for the Oilers to acquire a Dman. Certainly someone better than Reinhart. Had they drafted Barzal it would also give them organizational depth to trade RNH. Instead Oil is still looking for top pairing D. I bring this up because it's obvious that the Canucks biggest organizational need is yound D. Chuchryn will probably be available for when are drafting in the top 6. However I think it would be a big mistake to pass on players like Laine or Puljujarvi just to draft Chuchryn who fits the need. Always draft Best player available !! If they feel Chuchryn is better than the FiNs then I can live w. That. But don't draft Chuchryun at number 2 or 3 because we need him. Thoughts. ? Totally agree. However if your need is critical then it is sometimes hard to ignore a guy 3 or 4 places down that you may feel fills that need. Personally I still think we lack a bona fide goal scorer. When the twins hang up their skates I think this will become glaringly obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crackers Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I agree, but depending on where we finish, and the final draft rankings, Chychrun might be the bpa.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 34 minutes ago, Nail3738 said: Chychrun or Fire Linden and Benning. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 41 minutes ago, WestlockWarrior said: Yesterday's trade should serve as a reminder on which strategy to implement during a draft. That strategy should always be draft the best player available and not team needs and what we lack in the prospect cabinet. Nashville drafted Jones at 4th overall even though they had an abundance of Dmen such as Weber, Josi, Ellis, Ekholm, Klein at the time. They could have adult said we lack offence and centres and draft Monahan, Lindholm or Nichuskin instead who were all regarded as top 10 in their draft year. Fast forward to today and they trade Jones for a Franchise Centre and fill their organizational need. Second example is the Edmonton Oilers. It is widely believed they had Barzal as best player available when they were on the clock w. The 16th overall pick. Edmonton trades the pick because they feel they are stacked down the middle w. Mc, Drai, RNH. Big mistake ! After that WJC Barzal would have been a massive bargaining chip for the Oilers to acquire a Dman. Certainly someone better than Reinhart. Had they drafted Barzal it would also give them organizational depth to trade RNH. Instead Oil is still looking for top pairing D. I bring this up because it's obvious that the Canucks biggest organizational need is yound D. Chuchryn will probably be available for when are drafting in the top 6. However I think it would be a big mistake to pass on players like Laine or Puljujarvi just to draft Chuchryn who fits the need. Always draft Best player available !! If they feel Chuchryn is better than the FiNs then I can live w. That. But don't draft Chuchryun at number 2 or 3 because we need him. Thoughts. ? I agree. Laine or Puljujarvi would be great bargaining chips or just keep them, if we are lucky enough to get either. And some of those scrappy Russians weren't bad either, not a lot of those Dmen either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 literally the only time you might draft for positional need is when there are multiple guys of varying positions and qualities guaranteed to jump immediately into the nhl and make an impact. even then you're better off drafting for potential, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I think the issue is how does one determine bpa? Clearly Karlsson is a superior player than Hodgson. But who would have projected that? Edmonton's pick of Yakopov was it better than other options? Scouting is a tough job. You are looking at an 18 year old and projecting 7 years ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Jack Fig said: Starvi for Puljujarvi. Play like hiney for Laine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 So you select Nichukskin instead of Horvat? Schroeder was BPA... Montreal selected BPA Kostitsyn instead of organization needs (Big Center) Carter or Getzlaf. Gaunce wasn't BPA, yet a pretty good pick. Matter of fact is there is arguments for both side. Not because Jones was traded for Johansen, that it will happen like that every year. You win some, you lose some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 41 minutes ago, alfstonker said: Totally agree. However if your need is critical then it is sometimes hard to ignore a guy 3 or 4 places down that you may feel fills that need. Personally I still think we lack a bona fide goal scorer. When the twins hang up their skates I think this will become glaringly obvious. the problem is if you pick that guy up 3 or 4 places down he's still most likely 3-4 years away from beginning to fulfil that potential. by that time the team will have needed to fill that need through trade or free agency. i feel like that's the exact reason we had schneider playing all that time behind luongo...we needed a real goalie because cloutier was awful and picked up schnieder...before he rounded into form we also got luongo. i'd almost rather get more forwards and have a glut of them, so we can trade one/some of them for an already developed big-time d-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positive Canuck Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Get a TOP 5 and trade down for a bust would be so canuck. is delorme still around ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.