2019 NHL Entry Draft in Vancouver, BC

[kenhodgejr]

If the time is now for our rebuild to be over lets have a look at what we have. I missed a few people but this is the gist of it.  I expect Benning to sign a couple more players on July 1. Next year and the year after that will be really interesting to see how we play with more speed and skill youth and size. For the most part this is a whole new Canucks team. 

 

NHL Forwards 

LW                    C                         RW 

Miller           Pettersson          Boeser 

Pearsons       Horvat                Eriksson

Baertchi          Sutter                Virtanen 

Leivo               Gaudette           Motte 

Roussel           Beagle              

Schaller           Granlund           

                       Spooner            

 

NHL Defence 

LD                        RD

Edler                   Tanev

Hutton                Stetcher 

Hughes               Biega 

 

                       

AHL Forwards

LW                   C                 RW

Bouchier       Kero           MacEwan 

Gadjovich                         Lind 

                                        Jassek

AHL Defence 

LD                     RD

Juolevi              Chatfield

Sautner            Rafferty 

Teves                Eliot 

Brisebois 

 

USA College Forwards

 LW                   C                      RW

                  Madden            Lockwood 

 

USA College Defence 

LD                   RD

Rathbone 

 

Europe Forwards

LW                    C                     RW 

Hoglander                           Podkolzin 

 

Europe Defence 

LD                     RD

Tyramkin

Utenen 

 

CHL Forwards 

LW                    C                      RW

Keppan      

 

CHL Defence 

LD                      RD

                          Woo 

                   

[Canuck Surfer]

22 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

You realize if we have the 12th overall we keep the pick right? 

Fair point. I suppose you see the 1st round pick outgoing, and overreact. I did anyway.  

 

I'm still nervous about a ''go for it'' mentality. But it appears we are, so I guess because I am a fan, I'm going to have to get on board...

[Canucks-12]

No Jim Benning mic’d up this year for the draft? 

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

On 6/25/2019 at 12:19 AM, theo5789 said:

So you think because they didn't draft a dman in the latter rounds of the draft, that means the team doesn't care about their defense? If not then I don't get what you're questioning.

 

We have Teves, Rafferty, Chatfield, Brisebois Sautner, Eliot with Woo and Rathbone coming into the system soon. We have plenty of "depth" guys. We will likely continue to look for the overager juniors and NCAA guys for more depth who have a couple more years of development so we know closer to what we might get as dmen at a young age are harder to predict.

 

Our issue is top end dmen and sure we could continue to add some through the late rounds and hope one pans out, but the odds are heavily against it. It's a crapshoot in the latter rounds, so you simply take whoever you think is the BPA regardless of position and who knows if and when these players do develop if your needs are the same by then.

 

I was wanting Korczak in the 2nd round, but I didn't know about Hoglander much and now that I do, I would also take Hoglander over Korczak.

Juolevi, then Woo, then possibly Rathbone are our D likely to have 200 game plus careers.  Rathbone also has upside, if he does make it.  Low floor, high ceiling. Rathbone could end of being quite exciting. .For clarity, that's just my opinion.

 

Brisbois also a fair chance.  Mid floor, not that high a ceiling.  

 

Teves, Rafferty are, IMO, likely to be high end pieces for our AHL squad.  Call ups when we have injuries. Lucky to hit 100 games, if they do. Rather than low end chance for our NHL squad.  But they could surprise. Sautner will probably be in same boat with a low ceiling. Chatfield same, might score some when he does get callups.

 

Compare with Chicago?  Owning at least 3 guys, in attributes of talent, style of play as well as results like Rathbone; Khrys, Carlsson, Galvas.  Two guys at least as exciting, one more advanced, as Juolevi in Jokiharju, and Boqvist. Two guys probably more exciting and advanced than Woo in Mitchell & Beaudin.  All of these guys are performing at a level with Teves and Rafferty, at 3 to 5 years younger age. Which suggests a great deal more upside than our depth guys. So much depth, they passed on Bowen Byram.  

 

Koekkoek a similar player to Brisbois, I'd rather have Brisbois there > 3 years younger.

 

Chicago invested both early & late draft picks. On an ongoing basis to have one of the best D cores among prospect pools.

 

I don't buy that we can ignore drafting D because we signed some 24 y ear old college guys.  

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Juolevi, then Woo, then possibly Rathbone are our D likely to have 200 game plus careers.  Rathbone also has upside, if he does make it.  Low floor, high ceiling. Rathbone could end of being quite exciting. .For clarity, that's just my opinion.

 

Brisbois also a fair chance.  Mid floor, not that high a ceiling.  

 

Teves, Rafferty are, IMO, likely to be high end pieces for our AHL squad.  Call ups when we have injuries. Lucky to hit 100 games, if they do. Rather than low end chance for our NHL squad.  But they could surprise. Sautner will probably be in same boat with a low ceiling. Chatfield same, might score some when he does get callups.

 

Compare with Chicago?  Owning at least 3 guys, in attributes of talent, style of play as well as results like Rathbone; Khrys, Carlsson, Galvas.  Two guys at least as exciting, one more advanced, as Juolevi in Jokiharju, and Boqvist. Two guys probably more exciting and advanced than Woo in Mitchell & Beaudin.  All of these guys are performing at a level with Teves and Rafferty, at 3 to 5 years younger age. Which suggests a great deal more upside than our depth guys. So much depth, they passed on Bowen Byram.  

 

Koekkoek a similar player to Brisbois, I'd rather have Brisbois there > 3 years younger.

 

Chicago invested both early & late draft picks. On an ongoing basis to have one of the best D cores among prospect pools.

 

I don't buy that we can ignore drafting D because we signed some 24 y ear old college guys.  

We are not ignoring drafting dmen. It just happened this time around.

 

Almost all those dmen were drafted in the first two rounds. So unless you think we should've drafted a dman over Podkolzin or Hoglander, then it's moot to mention those names. Even the Keppen 4th round pick was considered a "steal" as he was ranked far higher by some than where he was picked. So when you are really considering 4-7 round picks, you're likely looking at depth dmen rather than top end guys (sure there can be hidden gems, but it's rare). By looking at some NCAA guys or overagers from the CHL, you're looking at closer to the final product for your depth so you can target what you want rather go for a longshot project that may never make the next level anyway.

 

I'm not that concerned that we didn't pick a dman if we considered everyone picked to be the BPA at their spot picked. I doubt the Canucks have a new mantra to never draft a dman again.

[Canuck Surfer]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

 

Almost all those dmen were drafted in the first two rounds.

Chad Krys was drafted in the 2knd round.

Ian Mitchell among the last picks of the second round.

Carlsson the 4th round

Galvas the 5th round.

 

And to be fair > I lumped each roughly within other guys draft levels.

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

I'm not that concerned that we didn't pick a dman

And this really all that is at odds. We disagree on this point.

 

My concern is simple.  I believe D is an area of concern in our prospect pool. And we did not draft any D. 

 

You think its fine.

[Gaudette Celly]

4 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Fair point. I suppose you see the 1st round pick outgoing, and overreact. I did anyway.  

 

I'm still nervous about a ''go for it'' mentality. But it appears we are, so I guess because I am a fan, I'm going to have to get on board...

Welcome aboard!

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Juolevi, then Woo, then possibly Rathbone are our D likely to have 200 game plus careers.  Rathbone also has upside, if he does make it.  Low floor, high ceiling. Rathbone could end of being quite exciting. .For clarity, that's just my opinion.

 

Brisbois also a fair chance.  Mid floor, not that high a ceiling.  

 

Teves, Rafferty are, IMO, likely to be high end pieces for our AHL squad.  Call ups when we have injuries. Lucky to hit 100 games, if they do. Rather than low end chance for our NHL squad.  But they could surprise. Sautner will probably be in same boat with a low ceiling. Chatfield same, might score some when he does get callups.

 

Compare with Chicago?  Owning at least 3 guys, in attributes of talent, style of play as well as results like Rathbone; Khrys, Carlsson, Galvas.  Two guys at least as exciting, one more advanced, as Juolevi in Jokiharju, and Boqvist. Two guys probably more exciting and advanced than Woo in Mitchell & Beaudin.  All of these guys are performing at a level with Teves and Rafferty, at 3 to 5 years younger age. Which suggests a great deal more upside than our depth guys. So much depth, they passed on Bowen Byram.  

 

Koekkoek a similar player to Brisbois, I'd rather have Brisbois there > 3 years younger.

 

Chicago invested both early & late draft picks. On an ongoing basis to have one of the best D cores among prospect pools.

 

I don't buy that we can ignore drafting D because we signed some 24 y ear old college guys.  

 

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

Since Benning took over:

 

2014 - 3 of 7 picks were D

 

2015 - 3 of 7

 

2016 - 2 of 6

 

2017 - 3 of 8

 

2018 - 3 of 6

 

This last year we also added 3 college FA D's.

 

This 'Canucks are anti-D' agenda is a load of manure.

 

 

 

[Smashian Kassian]

Im a little surprised that they didnt take a D, but I think part of it is trading our 3rd pick.

 

Once you get past the 3rd its really a super crapshoot. I think at that point position doesnt matter quite as much, your just trying to uncover guys you think have a chance, or your taking a flyer on guys that have certain things you like.

 

With our 1st pick is wasnt going to be a D once Broberg was gone. And im really happy with Podkolzin.

 

With our 2nd pick they really liked Hoglander. Personally I really liked Korczak for us there, but ill certainly trust our scouting team especially considering how excited they were about the pick afterward.

 

I think theres a good chance we mightve tried to get a D with our 3rd pick, while its still relatively early, but that pick was moved so.

 

Really it would be nice to have more picks, so you can get Hoglander or make a trade, & still have a pick in the first 3 rounds to get a well ranked defenseman. But adding picks havent been the priority, so we gotta just stick with the list/BPA on the picks we do have.

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

51 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This last year we also added 3 college FA D's.

 

This 'Canucks are anti-D' agenda is a load of manure.

I did the sums previously. Round by round analysis including players selected.  See below,

 

I'm not happy with it. Its not that it is an ''anti D'' movement. But we have not drafted in proportion to holes to fill. 

 

Im entitled to my opinion.' Skip the manure narrative.  Whats manure IMO is believing Rafferty & Teves, guys who were not good enough at 18 to make NCAA teams? Never mind be drafted.  Are going to be good enough at 24 to replace an effective drafting policy. They did not make the NCAA till 20.  We did not score premium college UFA's.

 

Another Troy Stecher signing & I would be happy. Teves scored 7 points in the NCAA the same year Stecher was a top pair PMD & scored 29 as a National Champ. Raffert is a little better.

 

Who was the third college UFA D this summer BTW?

 

On 6/25/2019 at 11:15 AM, Canuck Surfer said:

You have to draft enough D if you expect to have them in your system in adequate talent & proportion. 

 

Drafting no D in 8 picks is among the most irresponsible things I can imagine. Its going to set us back.

 

Bennings 6 year draft record with D;

 

1) 1st round, 2 players Hughes & Juolevi in 6 years.  I'm happy with that.

2) 2knd round, 1 player, Jett Woo.  Dangerous track record.  No wonder we don't have a ready supply lining up to join our roster.

3) 3rd round, 2 guys, Brisbois & Tryamkin.  Actually pretty good.  2 in 5 is a good ration & appears at least one possibly two NHL calibre guys.

4) 4th round, 1 Guy, Rathbone. Also appears a hit, but 1 in 6, if in rebuilding there must be a way of acquiring a few extra 4th rounders so we can hit more often.

5) 5th round, 3 Gunnarsson, Forlsing & Utunen.  Only round where we exceed the natural demand for players. 2 out of 6 on ice are D. Good picks in Utunen & Forsling.

6) 6th and 7th round 3 guys, Tate Olsen, Mackenzie Stewart, Matt Brassard.

 

We are really relying on some late round hits, in guys like Forsling, Utunen & Rathbone, to be part of our core, #4 & 5 D. And we need virtually a 100% success rate in the guys drafted in the 1st 3 rounds. If you believe in building by the draft?  Instead we are signing 24 year old college UFA's.  11 players into 42 possible picks, 6 of them in late rounds. The odds of getting top 4 D from late picks is poor. Forsling, as an example, ''made it.'' But he's playing the 6th D role in Chicago. And appears he will be pushed out of their system by higher draft picks emerging. A 200 game career is still a solid accomplishment for a 5th round pick? Hutton, a Gillis 5th rounder, appears he will have a better career. But is not a difference maker. This was a year we could have loaded a weaker D prospect pool because we had 8 picks.

 

The real reason Benning was signing 24 year old free agents, was because we had not invested enough in recent years. Its a stopgap & will repeat itself.

 

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Chad Krys was drafted in the 2knd round.

Ian Mitchell among the last picks of the second round.

Carlsson the 4th round

Galvas the 5th round.

 

And to be fair > I lumped each roughly within other guys draft levels.

And this really all that is at odds. We disagree on this point.

Krys and Mitchell were 2nd round picks, which is why I said most of those guys are from the first two rounds. I was saying that unless you're thinking we should've picked a dman over our first two pick this year, then we weren't getting a dman in the 1st or 2nd round anyway. Carlsson was a 4th rounder, but I mentioned that Keppen was ranked very high by some, so he may have indeed been the BPA at that point rather than simply picking a D for the sake of it. Galvas is just another depth dman as far as I'm concerned and after development (if he gets to that point) he would be no different than say a Teves or Rafferty at best. Just because a player is drafted doesn't make them a better player than the undrafted ones. These guys develop later and we see closer to a finished product by looking at these older guys where they could've simply been "draft picks" made in previous years to put it in a different perspective. We have let many late round drafted dmen go because they simply amounted to nothing.

 

Quote

My concern is simple.  I believe D is an area of concern in our prospect pool. And we did not draft any D. 

 

You think its fine.

I think we could use more top end dmen, but I think depth is fine and we will continue to look at the top unsigned NCAA class and keep the scouting open on overage juniors to add to this depth. We did get a Tanev and Stecher through this route. It is a longshot to find a quality defender (or really any player) in the later rounds anyway. So yes I'm fine that for one year we just happened to not draft a dman and I doubt it's a new thing for the organization so I'm not concerned.

Edited June 26, 2019 by theo5789

[mikeyman109]

On 6/23/2019 at 5:12 PM, Isam said:

Vlasic was overrated. His gap control and overall defensive reads were a hot mess. I liked robertson alot though. He was great on the defensive end plus has a largely untapped offensive game. As for hoglander, i think you are vastly underrating just because of the height thing. Kid is almost 190 and has unbelievable core strength. He also tested unbelievably well at the combine beating many of the giants you rated highly. It shouldn't be too much of an issue for him to make the adjustment to the nhl once he comes over. 

like i said I hope the kid proves me wrong

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I did the sums previously. Round by round analysis including players selected.  See below,

 

I'm not happy with it. Its not that it is an ''anti D'' movement. But we have not drafted in proportion to holes to fill. 

 

Im entitled to my opinion.' Skip the manure narrative.  Whats manure IMO is believing Rafferty & Teves, guys who were not good enough at 18 to make NCAA teams? Never mind be drafted.  Are going to be good enough at 24 to replace an effective drafting policy. They did not make the NCAA till 20.  We did not score premium college UFA's.

 

Another Troy Stecher signing & I would be happy. Teves scored 7 points in the NCAA the same year Stecher was a top pair PMD & scored 29 as a National Champ. Raffert is a little better.

 

Who was the third college UFA D this summer BTW?

 

 

But a 6th round pick is?

 

Hey man, I was hoping to nab a D with our 2nd this year but I would take Hoglander 10 out of 10 times. That's just how the cookies crumbled this year.

 

Rafferty, Teves, Elliott.

[Phat Fingers]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Krys and Mitchell were 2nd round picks, which is why I said most of those guys are from the first two rounds. I was saying that unless you're thinking we should've picked a dman over our first two pick this year, then we weren't getting a dman in the 1st or 2nd round anyway. Carlsson was a 4th rounder, but I mentioned that Keppen was ranked very high by some, so he may have indeed been the BPA at that point rather than simply picking a D for the sake of it. Galvas is just another depth dman as far as I'm concerned and after development (if he gets to that point) he would be no different than say a Teves or Rafferty at best. Just because a player is drafted doesn't make them a better player than the undrafted ones. These guys develop rates and we see closer to a finished product by looking at these older guys where they could've simply been "draft picks" made in previous years to put it in a different perspective. We have let many late round drafted dmen go because they simply amounted to nothing.

 

I think we could use more top end dmen, but I think depth is fine and we will continue to look at the top unsigned NCAA class and keep the scouting open on overage juniors to add to this depth. We did get a Tanev and Stecher through this route. It is a longshot to find a quality defender (or really any player) in the later rounds anyway. So yes I'm fine that for one year we just happened to not draft a dman and I doubt it's a new thing for the organization so I'm not concerned.

We traded our 3rd to address a big hole in our top six.  I am fine with that.  

 

Late rounders are simply lotto tickets that are highly unlikely to make any impact on our team.  Costmar and Malone are very interesting picks and I have no problem with them.  If one of our late rounders makes a 100 games in the NHL, win.  

 

Keppen was too good to pass.. BPA.  Hoglander was the target with our second.  The team was very high on him and again BPA.  

 

I don't think anyone expected Podz to be there at 10 and again, simply too good to pass on, BPA.  

 

You have to take what the draft gives you.  Podz and Keppen were both lucky picks.  The two most likely players on the teams radar were Sieder and Broberg.  From the reaction when Detroit picked, Sieder was likely expected to be there at 10.  

 

Podz vs either Seider or Broberg.... Podz hands down.  

 

Hughes wasn't supposed to fall for us, Woo was like a bonus first rounder.  

 

The Pettersson draft, Lind was there and Clague was there.  I would have been happy to land Clague.  Big mean mobile RHD.  Both still need to mature and there is no telling who will be better.  

 

I do think that defence needs to be a priority at the draft table.  I don't think that the nucks expected to pick all forwards. P

 

 

[Analyst82]

Hey guys, any mic'ed up videos of the canucks staff? 

[Hogs & Podz]

On 4/16/2019 at 10:50 PM, Rodishred said:

'Scouting Report

Aggressive winger with a nonstop motor and the ability to play much bigger than his measurements may indicate. Hoglander has played against adult competition in each of the last two seasons, and his dominance at the summer under-20 Four Nations tournament in August should earn him a berth on Rogle’s opening-night roster. He plays the game at a feverish pace no matter the score or how much time is left, and his compete level is exactly what you want in a skill forward who is summoned to tackle key situations. Hoglander isn’t big, but he is fearless in the corners and immediately bounces back from hefty wallops from older, larger opponents. Without the puck, he’s an aggressive forechecker with an active stick who will finish his checks and force turnovers or rushed passes with regularity.

Hoglander is a very good skater with first-step quickness who can accelerate to top speed in an instant. He controls his pace extremely well, and his quick feet and agility allow him to make sharp moves through the neutral zone. Hoglander is a capable stickhandler who weaves his way through a dense network of sticks and bodies, and his cutbacks lure opponents away from coverage before he exploits openings with hard, crisp passes on the tape. He can play the game either inside or out, and he’s a low-maintenance shooter thanks to a quick release and his ability to get shots on net while blanketed. Hoglander has excellent vision, and his decisions with the puck seem to always make sense.'

 

Where could the nucks get this guy... Between 20 and 30?  

Found it... Love at first sight!

[R3aL]

22 hours ago, Analyst82 said:

Hey guys, any mic'ed up videos of the canucks staff? 

Maybe expected too much trade talk and didn’t want to do it 

[EP Phone Home]

On 6/26/2019 at 11:55 AM, Analyst82 said:

Hey guys, any mic'ed up videos of the canucks staff? 

This came out a day or two ago but sadly no mic’ed up vids and stuff. Interesting response during the trade though, I dont remember hearing that many cheers in attendance when I was there.

 

[flickyoursedin]

Our Canucks have been very fortunate over the last couple years with their top targets falling to them. Pettersson and Lind seemed like the targets in the first round in 2017. Hughes and Woo sounded like their guys in 2018. I mean obviously Hughes and Byram were the obvious dream but rumours are Benning had a trade down scenario if Podkolzin wasn’t there and Hoglander sounds like he was their target as well. Every year near the end I think picking up a couple mean nothing wins will hurt in the draft but it’s nice to see we’re getting our guys.

[cyoung]

17 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

Our Canucks have been very fortunate over the last couple years with their top targets falling to them. Pettersson and Lind seemed like the targets in the first round in 2017. Hughes and Woo sounded like their guys in 2018. I mean obviously Hughes and Byram were the obvious dream but rumours are Benning had a trade down scenario if Podkolzin wasn’t there and Hoglander sounds like he was their target as well. Every year near the end I think picking up a couple mean nothing wins will hurt in the draft but it’s nice to see we’re getting our guys.

Teams will always say their players dropped to them. Not trying to buzz kill or anything haha.