2019 NHL Entry Draft in Vancouver, BC

[steviewonder20]

1 hour ago, R3aL said:

He’s grown, he’s closer to 5 ft 10 at the combine measurement 

 

and the average male male height is actually 5 ft 9, not for hockey players sure but for men in general

 

hes already bigger than arvidsson, and with the way he trains and takes care of himself don’t think size will be something that holds him back at all.

 

ya well kaeden doesn’t really have a high ceiling imo so this pick was better. He was ranked number 19 I think or

something like that by the scoucher report dude and it’s hard to ignore the potential he has.

 

well he says he models himself after Fiala / Arvidsson so let’s hope for that! 

Actually, male height varies by country.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

 

5’9” is average for Canada and the US but it is clearly short for Sweden, as well as the NHL. This is not to suggest that he can’t succeed or isn't a good pick at 40, but data suggests that he is short. He also appears to be pretty solid given the weight he carries on his frame, so he’s not scrawny. 

[Nucker 67]

Benning seems confident that by adding Teves, Rafferty and Eliot they are in fine shape with D depth. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I believe Hoglander is a better player than Korczak. I feel pretty good about the Canucks forward depth (core and prospects) now:

 

Hoglander - Pettersson - Podkolzin

Goldobin - Horvat - Boeser

Virtanen - Gaudette - Lind

Gadjovich - Madden - MacEwen

Perron - Karlsson - Lockwood

Keppen - Costmar - Jasek

 

It kind of hurt to lose the 3rd this year, as a D would've been good there. 

 

[Kanukfanatic]

4 hours ago, mikeyman109 said:

I think the miss is the Pick where we took Hoglander over Korczack.. Some here are excited and that's their prerogative

 I personally would have taken the D over the diminutive forward. I See it as Edmonton type move (see no D men) and we will still be looking for Defensemen in 2 years when Tanev and Edler are gone and Juolevi and Woo are on the team. I have little faith in the current D group as its still our biggest weakness. I was hoping we would draft D in the first round and then forwards in the second, or Forward at 10 and then D at 40.

The fact that JB professed to want to improve the D and then doesn't draft any is what i find ...

Hoglander is not diminutive (which means tiny). He is short but weighs as much as the Sedins did during their entire careers.

 

Regardless of the fact you are wrong about Hoglander being tiny, one would have thought the Canucks would have taken some D during the draft.

 

Edit: I just saw aGENT said the exact same thing as I did about Hoglander's size haha. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Kanukfanatic

[mikeyman109]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

He's 185 lbs.

At 18.

You don't get to call that 'diminutive'.

 

That's the same weight the Sedins played at as full grown men in their primes. And again, he's 18. (Along with being highly skilled and an extremely fit athlete, stellar skater etc).

 

You don't 'improve the D', in the present day, at the draft. At least not without a top 5 pick. Any of the other D were likely 2+ years out.

 

And speaking of, the guy calling a 185lb 18 year old 'diminutive', you don't pass a high ceiling, F with size who plays like a freaking wrecking ball like Podkolzin. He should be right up your compensating-for-size alley.

 

Draft D, yes. Big proponent of it. But I'm also a proponent of selecting the BPA and when a late1st round talent like Hoglander lands in your lap at 40, you take him. Sometimes the cookies just crumble to F, sometimes it's to D. Sometimes it's to both. We drafted a lot of solid D last year AND signed a load of college UFA's. We have a few in the pipeline already. It's fine. We'll take more next year too.

Again there is a reason the kid dropped to 40th pick . He is diminutive whether you like it or not.

You improve the D at the draft. If you dont see why Detroit picked Seider at 6 you dont understand how teams should build a winning team.

I like the Podkolzin pick. I am patient enough on a player that will come here in 2 years and possibly make an immediate impact. I have not complained at all about the pick at 10.

where I dont agree is passing on Korzack at 40. Not adding to  the D pool in this draft at all was a mistake and it will continue to be our achilles heel. I am Not a fan of the mix of Hutton Stecher and Hughes. Hughes may one day be a hall of famer but the other two do not produce points at the back end and are not where we need them to be defensively. None of these would be my first choice to play against Kopitar, Getzlaf, Thornton or any other of the bigger players in the western conference. Im not saying you cant have a smaller player at D but you cant have an army of them. and smaller doesnt neccessarily mean their size, its how they play the game. Krug is smaller but he plays like hes 6'2 and the bruins have big men around to insulate him. you could m ake the argument that Hoglander becomes a Johnny Gaudreau. He disappeared in the playoffs because once the going gets rough and the refs put their whistles away the larger players have an advantage

Taking what is always called the BPA which is always subjective is how Edmonton got into their mess. They had so many high first round picks and never took a D. We took Juolevi and Hughes. at least that's a start.

I am watching what Colorado is doing in building the base of great young D men and thinking why not us? There's  a couple reasons they can shop a Tyson Barrie.

One Defensemen carry a lot more value than Forwards. You get more back in trades.

Two  they are harder to come by in free agency and trades. It costs more to trade and they generally command more as a free agent.

Last but not least why is it ok to wait 2 years for Podkolzin and not a D man that might potentially get us out of our piss poor back end?

 

 

 

[mikeyman109]

5 hours ago, RetroCanuck said:

Difference being we have a lot of quality prospect defensemen. Hughes will be a top 4. Juolevi, Tryamkin and Woo could and most likely will be top 4D. Stecher is a top 4. Rathbone, Rafferty, Teves, Brisebois and Chatfield could all turn out to be NHL defensemen.

 

Therefore what we need now may not be what we need in a couple years time. Hughes and Juolevi will be integrated into the NHL this year with a good chance that Tryamkin and Woo could be added to the lineup in a years time

if JB had so much faith in this group you listed why did he say we had to improve the D?

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

if JB had so much faith in this group you listed why did he say we had to improve the D?

Improve the D in the present, but our future d prospects look good.  We have Hughes, OJ, Woo, and Rathbone all coming.  Maybe JB believed the D guys we could have drafted this year, weren’t going to be as good as the guys we have coming?  

[mikeyman109]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Improve the D in the present, but our future d prospects look good.  We have Hughes, OJ, Woo, and Rathbone all coming.  Maybe JB believed the D guys we could have drafted this year, weren’t going to be as good as the guys we have coming?  

Alf my issue is that when Hughes OJ and maybe one of the other D are ready to take the reins for this team Edler and Tanev will be gone. I dont see Hutton and Stecher and Hughes as being able to defend against the bigger forwards in this conference. St Louis is big at the back end. They are not at a disadvantage when the Refs put the whistle away.

A team can never have enough d men. In 94 we went to finals and 9 players had lined up on D for us in significant games that year. I wouldnt bet our top 9 get us anywhere at this time. We are not deep enough talent wise on the back end and in two years when Tanev and Edler are gone, we still will have Hughes Stecher, Hutton and a  mix of Juolevi, Woo and some others. Why would we be ok waiting for two years to have Podkolzin join the team and bring impact to the team yet say we wont draft another D man who may do the same ? I dont understand that thinking. Our achilles heel is our D. and In two years that will be the same issue.

[RetroCanuck]

5 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

if JB had so much faith in this group you listed why did he say we had to improve the D?

JB does have faith in that group I mentioned, thats why he didn't specifically draft more prospect defensemen this year.

 

He's trying to improve the D as it is now because its letting us down. Edler/Tanev to injury prone. Hutton's inconsistency. Underperforming players in the past such as Guddy and Pouliot. He's trying to make us deeper now so our prospects have time to develop and aren't rushed.

 

Edler-Tanev

Hughes-Stecher

Hutton-Myers

 

Honestly that D group is still pretty poor, but if healthy its serviceable. My hope is that by the deadline Juolevi and Rafferty show they are ready for some NHL minutes allowing for the trades of Hutton and Tanev.

[R3aL]

1 hour ago, steviewonder20 said:

Actually, male height varies by country.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

 

5’9” is average for Canada and the US but it is clearly short for Sweden, as well as the NHL. This is not to suggest that he can’t succeed or isn't a good pick at 40, but data suggests that he is short. He also appears to be pretty solid given the weight he carries on his frame, so he’s not scrawny. 

I don’t usually quote wikis when trying to correct someone. In general all I was saying is his size won’t be the determining factor in his success. If you averaged out all the heights of men on the planet I’m sure it would be closer to North America’s than to Sweden’s anyways. And his combine measurement was basically 5 ft 10.

 

And your point just strengthens mine even more. If the average height of swedes are greater than North American men, then Hoglander has played with and outperformed his peers who are on average bigger than him. Most likely motivating him to be in the shape he is in.

 

and he’s a kid who’s not done growing playing against fully grown men in the SHL who are on average bigger than him.

 

not worried at all about his size.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, mikeyman109 said:

Alf my issue is that when Hughes OJ and maybe one of the other D are ready to take the reins for this team Edler and Tanev will be gone. I dont see Hutton and Stecher and Hughes as being able to defend against the bigger forwards in this conference. St Louis is big at the back end. They are not at a disadvantage when the Refs put the whistle away.

A team can never have enough d men. In 94 we went to finals and 9 players had lined up on D for us in significant games that year. I wouldnt bet our top 9 get us anywhere at this time. We are not deep enough talent wise on the back end and in two years when Tanev and Edler are gone, we still will have Hughes Stecher, Hutton and a  mix of Juolevi, Woo and some others. Why would we be ok waiting for two years to have Podkolzin join the team and bring impact to the team yet say we wont draft another D man who may do the same ? I dont understand that thinking. Our achilles heel is our D. and In two years that will be the same issue.

What D was available at 10 though?  Soderstrom is a small guy, so not him.  Any D drafted 40 or later are years away.  I think JB will sign one of Myers or Gardiner.  Tryamkin is coming back.

myers is 230

Tryamkin is 260

Edler is 230

OJ, Woo, and Hutton are all well over 200

Hughes is a phenom.

Stecher is a squirt.  

[mikeyman109]

3 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said:

JB does have faith in that group I mentioned, thats why he didn't specifically draft more prospect defensemen this year.

 

He's trying to improve the D as it is now because its letting us down. Edler/Tanev to injury prone. Hutton's inconsistency. Underperforming players in the past such as Guddy and Pouliot. He's trying to make us deeper now so our prospects have time to develop and aren't rushed.

 

Edler-Tanev

Hughes-Stecher

Hutton-Myers

 

Honestly that D group is still pretty poor, but if healthy its serviceable. My hope is that by the deadline Juolevi and Rafferty show they are ready for some NHL minutes allowing for the trades of Hutton and Tanev.

Myers is still not listed on the Canucks Roster. Did I miss a trade for his rights and a signing? Of course that changes things a lot. Its still a huge contract to have to add and may add to cap issues later one with Petey.  the D group with Edler and Tanev is pretty poor. Who is to say that with them gone and the others on the blue line its much better? Does the list below fill you with confidence?

 

Edler-Tanev

Hughes-Stecher

Hutton-Myers

 

Juolevi-Woo

Hughes-Stecher

Hutton-Rafferty

[RetroCanuck]

4 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Alf my issue is that when Hughes OJ and maybe one of the other D are ready to take the reins for this team Edler and Tanev will be gone. I dont see Hutton and Stecher and Hughes as being able to defend against the bigger forwards in this conference. St Louis is big at the back end. They are not at a disadvantage when the Refs put the whistle away.

A team can never have enough d men. In 94 we went to finals and 9 players had lined up on D for us in significant games that year. I wouldnt bet our top 9 get us anywhere at this time. We are not deep enough talent wise on the back end and in two years when Tanev and Edler are gone, we still will have Hughes Stecher, Hutton and a  mix of Juolevi, Woo and some others. Why would we be ok waiting for two years to have Podkolzin join the team and bring impact to the team yet say we wont draft another D man who may do the same ? I dont understand that thinking. Our achilles heel is our D. and In two years that will be the same issue.

Juolevi, Woo, Tryamkin, Rafferty, Brisebois, Chatfield are all at least 6ft. Thats not a small defense.

 

The key for St. Louis was that they had at least some big guys that could handle the big forwards. Juolevi, Woo, Tryamkin, Brisebois, Chatfield, are all more then capable of that job

[RowdyCanuck]

10 minutes ago, mikeyman109 said:

Alf my issue is that when Hughes OJ and maybe one of the other D are ready to take the reins for this team Edler and Tanev will be gone. I dont see Hutton and Stecher and Hughes as being able to defend against the bigger forwards in this conference. St Louis is big at the back end. They are not at a disadvantage when the Refs put the whistle away.

A team can never have enough d men. In 94 we went to finals and 9 players had lined up on D for us in significant games that year. I wouldnt bet our top 9 get us anywhere at this time. We are not deep enough talent wise on the back end and in two years when Tanev and Edler are gone, we still will have Hughes Stecher, Hutton and a  mix of Juolevi, Woo and some others. Why would we be ok waiting for two years to have Podkolzin join the team and bring impact to the team yet say we wont draft another D man who may do the same ? I dont understand that thinking. Our achilles heel is our D. and In two years that will be the same issue.

You mentioned the pasted so then you know the Canucks have never really had a top six....they have always pushed players into the top six that don't belong there.....look at Booth and Higgins....I'm sorry they would have been third liners on cup team like the Hawks.......Canucks always find good D some how.... When Jim took over our D had no future then Hutton and stetcher showed up.....that's history and Canucks have that on their side......Jim also knows you can find top four D in the middle of the first round of the draft.....Hughes being offensive gifted he needs a big stay at home D which you usually find in the middle of the first round.....I think if Jim is back next draft he will draft like the Preds and take D.....sorry for jumping in....just wanted add my two cents 

Edited June 23, 2019 by RowdyCanuck

[mikeyman109]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

What D was available at 10 though?  Soderstrom is a small guy, so not him.  Any D drafted 40 or later are years away.  I think JB will sign one of Myers or Gardiner.  Tryamkin is coming back.

myers is 230 still not a Canuck, like Karlsson is not a Canuck either.

Tryamkin is 260 they miss the big Russian Kid

Edler is 230, i am not impressed since 2011

OJ, Woo, and Hutton are all well over 200, great Hutton is not a great argument for our D being great

Hughes is a phenom. we will see him in a full year this year. i am hopeful

Stecher is a squirt.  Agreed and he doesnt put up enough offence to counter his lack of defensive prowess

I wasnt complaining about the pick at 10. I had no issue with a forward at 10 but then a D at 40. Its the Hoglander pick over Korczack i don't like. Or another young D.

The Free agent class this year is poor on D and thus we will overpay if we can even convince one of the top flight guys to come here.

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by mikeyman109

[86Viking]

2 hours ago, KKnight said:

I have watch Korczak multiple times and I can tell you he was not that impressive. He was okay, but like bottom pairing okay. Hoglander was a no brainer pick. 

D are so tough to judge in my opinion. Lots of solid NHL D men were drafted in the 2nd round, I take that chance in my opinion as if he was to pan out so much more valuable to a team. 

 

But here is hoping Hoggy is a Zuc/Arvy hybrid!?

[mikeyman109]

4 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:

You mentioned the pasted so then you know the Canucks have never really had a top six....they have always pushed players into the top six that don't belong there.....look at Booth and Higgins....I'm sorry they would have been third liners on cup team like the Hawks.......Canucks always find good D some how.... When Jim took over our D had no future then Hutton and stetcher showed up.....that's history and Canucks have that on their side......Jim also knows you can find top four D in the middle of the first round of the draft.....Hughes being offensive gifted he needs a big stay at home D which you usually find in the middle of the first round.....I think if Jim is back next draft he will draft like the Preds and take D.....

The Canucks have never really had a top 2. Have we ever had a Norris trophy nominated D man? ever? I know we haven't had a winner.

and Hutton and Stecher are not good examples to argue in regards to us getting good D. Neither is capable in defending against the bigger forwards and they don't produce enough offensively to counter their defensive misgivings

[Alflives]

Just now, mikeyman109 said:

I wasnt complaining about the pick at 10. I had no issue with a forward at 10 but then a D at 40. Its the Hoglander pick over Korczack i don't like. Or another young D.

The Free agent class this year is poor on D and thus we will overpay if we can even convince one of the top flight guys to come here.

And D men

I do agree that it seems a lot of top four d come out of rounds two and three.  They do usually take 4-5 years to get to the NHL though, and then a couple seasons to mature into top four players.  I really liked Dunn in his draft year, and Gerard in his.  These guy are good young D, but aren’t key players yet.  I do understand your point though.

[mikeyman109]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I do agree that it seems a lot of top four d come out of rounds two and three.  They do usually take 4-5 years to get to the NHL though, and then a couple seasons to mature into top four players.  I really liked Dunn in his draft year, and Gerard in his.  These guy are good young D, but aren’t key players yet.  I do understand your point though.

I get D take longer to develop, its why i had no issue with the Juolevi pick over Tkachuck, ok i am also biased against that family for comments the kids father said years ago. They just are not a Canuck family. but i also liked the D pick over the forward.

We have a lot of forwards and every year there are players who come along that we can sign in FA. Finding the D man that we can get to come here is going to be difficult costly and more dangerous than Erikssons contract.

I reiterate my statement from last year that Norris trophy D men come thru the draft. Its not often you can get a Scott Stevens in Free agency.

All the things being said about Hoglander were said about Shroeder a few years back regardless of which GM drafted them. Compete sick hands, skates great, leadership, ahead of his age group. Well Shroeder had 45 points with an AHL team last year. Just not a pick I would have made.Seen it before.

[RowdyCanuck]

1 minute ago, mikeyman109 said:

The Canucks have never really had a top 2. Have we ever had a Norris trophy nominated D man? ever? I know we haven't had a winner.

and Hutton and Stecher are not good examples to argue in regards to us getting good D. Neither is capable in defending against the bigger forwards and they don't produce enough offensively to counter their defensive misgivings

You right but Hughes is hopefully that one guy....and hopefully wins a Norris.....KB was a gem and the Canucks may not have had a number one guy but they've found acouple number 2 guys like elder and ohlund...having a number one guy is great but you need a number one pairing to win....like seabrook and Kieth and so on.....balance and Jim has two skill guys like Hughes and OJ and now he needs to find the balance for them.....there wasn't a D that fit that mold in the second round....korczack seems like a third pairing D....nils seems like a gem. 

[mikeyman109]

10 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

D are so tough to judge in my opinion. Lots of solid NHL D men were drafted in the 2nd round, I take that chance in my opinion as if he was to pan out so much more valuable to a team. 

 

But here is hoping Hoggy is a Zuc/Arvy hybrid!?

I hope the kid proves me wrong, i truly hope he scores 50 a year and the cup winning goal. I have just seen better players than him Ronning e.g. struggle to score in the NHL and Ronning put up 200 points in junior.