6th Pick: 2014 NHL Entry Draft

[theminister]

imho Keep this pick unless 2015 picks were offered instead. At 6th overall we're likely getting a potential 1st-line player. Further down it gets way more difficult to say that.

I can sympathize with that line of reasoning but there is very little agreement on player place after #5 and through #12. One list may have a player ranked at 6th and other at 11th. This thread is a perfect example of that. There is no guarantee that the player at 6th is more likely a 1st liner than the player at 11th.

For example, take the next 8 or 10 ranked players after the top 5.... something like Ritchie, Ehlers, Nylander, Virtanen, Perlini, Kapanen, Virtanen, Fleury and throw in Tuch and McCann for good measure.

Now take your preference at 6th, I believe for you it is Virtanen, and pick the last two players you rank of the ones remaining.

At 12th and 13th, isn't it better to have those two, say Fleury and Perlini, over Virtanen? Isn't McCann and Tuch better at 14th and 15th than Virtanen? Especially consider that Virtanen could fall to 10th.

I would assume that trading down to 7th and 8th would be a no-brainer so aren't we just talking about a matter of degree?

[asian player]

So your saying he will be a superstar in the NHL right? Sestito scored 42 goals in juniors just saying.

there's a reason why tommy was never ranked #6. Don't look at numbers, Ritchie has the tools Sestito can't even hope to dream of

[Merci]

So your saying he will be a superstar in the NHL right? Sestito scored 42 goals in juniors just saying.

Sestito scored 42 a year after Ritchie

Ritchie scored 36 this year

[73 Percent]

Ritchie is a generational phenom, there hasn't been a big player that skilled in junior in years

define generational phenom. put a number on it if you can.

[Hedman]

Ok i read the last 10 pages and here's what I'm going to say.

we need to address our needs. Skill is necessary in every division, conference, league. However, why not take a guy that has skill and size? Everyone here is arguing and defending the guy they want, but are making stuff up to make the other guy look bad.

I'm just going to say that I'm all for Ritchie. It seems to me that everybody is saying his dominance won't translate to the NHL. I would like to point out that Lucic was 220 when he was in the WHL. Whether Ritchie loses weight or gains weight, he will most definitely get stronger. He has skating that does not hinder his ability to get to where he needs to be. He is a good skater for his size. He has very good vision and is a good passer. He also has a very good shot. On top of that, he runs guys over. And guess what? When he goes to the NHL, he'll continue to run guys over because he is only going to get stronger

I like the fact that people are talking about the lack of potential in Ritchie, that he's a risky pick. There's a lot to like about his game IMO. As far as potential goes, how many thought that Lucic would be an important 60 point guy in the NHL when he was drafted, after putting up 19 points in 62 games in the WHL? Even the thought of it at the time would've been ridiculous. Ritchie is way more talented than Lucic ever was in junior, and i'm not saying he'll be better than Lucic or even as good as Lucic, i just think it's worth taking into consideration here. Ritchie led his team in scoring this year. He scored more goals than anyone on his team, by margin. Also led his team in scoring in the playoffs. Again, he had more goals than anyone on his team. Apart from that, his game is not all about putting up offensive numbers. It's tough to NOT like Ritchie. If Ritchie turns into a 50 point guy that can also bring physical presence, then i'd be perfectly fine.

[Merci]

define generational phenom. put a number on it if you can.

80 points as a 18 year old 235 lb player

3nd year juniour

he played when he was 15 as well

Sestito had 20 points in 50 games his 2nd year

Ritchie had 35 in 41

[73 Percent]

80 points as a 18 year old 235 lb player

2nd year juniour

well he only got 74 points so I guess your wrong.

horvat had 74 points as an 18 year old OH EM GEE WE HAVE GENERATIONAL TALENT!!!

holey moley nick cousins had 103 points in the ohl when he was 18! da next crosbyyyyyyyyyy!

are you kidding me!?!?! yakupov had 101 points in his draft year! hes gunna be a lifetime superstar MOVE OVER GRETZKY!

oh wait.

thats using your logic. whats more impressive is that these players did it weighing less than ritchie and didnt have a chance to physically impose the rest of the league.

merci logic at its finest.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I can sympathize with that line of reasoning but there is very little agreement on player place after #5 and through #12. One list may have a player ranked at 6th and other at 11th. This thread is a perfect example of that. There is no guarantee that the player at 6th is more likely a 1st liner than the player at 11th.

For example, take the next 8 or 10 ranked players after the top 5.... something like Ritchie, Ehlers, Nylander, Virtanen, Perlini, Kapanen, Virtanen, Fleury and throw in Tuch and McCann for good measure.

Now take your preference at 6th, I believe for you it is Virtanen, and pick the last two players you rank of the ones remaining.

At 12th and 13th, isn't it better to have those two, say Fleury and Perlini, over Virtanen? Isn't McCann and Tuch better at 14th and 15th than Virtanen? Especially consider that Virtanen could fall to 10th.

I would assume that trading down to 7th and 8th would be a no-brainer so aren't we just talking about a matter of degree?

I'd agree that Fleury and Perlini is potentially better than just Virtanen, but would this trade ever be possible? You'd have to consider the specifics of any theoretical deal and consider them, but then again if it's just not possible...

[Merci]

well he only got 74 points so I guess your wrong.

horvat had 74 points as an 18 year old OH EM GEE WE HAVE GENERATIONAL TALENT!!!

holey moley nick cousins had 103 points in the ohl when he was 18! da next crosbyyyyyyyyyy!

are you kidding me!?!?! yakupov had 101 points in his draft year! hes gunna be a lifetime superstar MOVE OVER GRETZKY!

oh wait.

thats using your logic. whats more impressive is that these players did it weighing less than ritchie and didnt have a chance to physically impose the rest of the league.

merci logic at its finest.

Your posts are really dull, did any of those 80 point players have that skill set in such a clunky un athletic body, give your ahead a shake and realize smaller guys naturally have a more NHL ready body with their skating than Ritchie cn ever have.

Ritchie is the superior player in a few years

[73 Percent]

Your posts are really dull, did any of those 80 point players have that skill set in such a clunky un athletic body, give your ahead a shake and realize smaller guys naturally have a more NHL ready body with their skating than Ritchie cn ever have.

Ritchie is the superior player in a few years

ya probably. but generational talent merci? come on. even you are smarter than that.

[elvis15]

...

I would assume that trading down to 7th and 8th would be a no-brainer so aren't we just talking about a matter of degree?

That would all depend on who the Canucks are high on and where they think they can still get him though. If it's a player they feel isn't likely to go until closer to 10th, then sure, move down a few spots and maybe get an extra 2nd rounder.

If they aren't high on anyone else though and think the one they are high on could go 7th or 8th if we trade down then I'd think we'd just pick that player. We could have an agreement with the Jets for example they wouldn't take who we wanted with the 6th and we get the 9th overall, but then we'd have no guarantee Carolina or Toronto wouldn't take the player in question.

Otherwise if they can't get the player they want or trade up, and don't really like anyone else enough or can't trade down and still get who they want, then why not just trade our pick?

[Plum]

Here's the point though….

If you don't have much knowledge of Lehkonen then how can you have so much more of Kapanen? They play on the same team, on the same line often, and Lehkonen has been on the radar a year longer. Surely, if assessments were being based off of more than online scouting reports, of which are of dubious reliability, and short youtube videos then any knowledge of Lehkonen's game should be equally well known.

Short video clips don't encompass all of a player's attributes or effect on game play because they cherry pick certain highlights and leave aside what a player does away from the puck and in situations were there is not a goal produced. It also leaves aside the plays they get victimized on.

Lehkonen outscored Kapanen based on draft year comparables when playing on the same team, in the same league, against the same aged players. Lehkonen's offensive game was actually much more advanced at this stage than Kapanen's. Kapanen may be a fairly safe bet but most teams don't draft a player with good defense to fall back on at the 6th spot unless they are either the best in the world for their age or are expected to have all world offence as well.

I thought there seems the consensus that size didn't matter much? Also that they are playing in a men's league and have room to grow. The same reasoning should apply to both players. Especially considering there is very little difference between Kapanen and Lehkonen. Forget what you read on websites, watch the game play and you will see they are virtually identical in size.

Kapanen may be the more complete player. He may have better top end speed. I don't think he has much of an edge, if at all, in any other category. Lehkonen has arguably better passing, shot, stick handling, and hockey sense. Again, refer to the size argument above.

Kapanen may be a tier above but not enough to justify the disparity in how you two are ranking him compared to Lehkonen. IMHO the same potential warning flags exist between the two players. Being able to watch them on the same ice allows scouts a clear picture of their attributes versus the same opponents.

Lehkonen is also a year older than Kapanen and 1 year older can make alot of differences when you are young.

When I say Kapanen has defense to fall back on that is only if all things go wrong and he loses his offensive abilities. Now, if he doesn't lose his offensive abilities and continues to progress he can become a Marian Hossa type of player with skills on both side of the puck.

[Plum]

So here is a question….

If there were a bunch of draft day dealings and the Canucks were offered two 1st round picks for the 6th overall, what would those picks need to be to consider a trade down worth it?

Assume that the top 5 go as expected.

For sake of argument, keep the picks as back-to backs. Would the 11th and 12th overall picks be worth it? What about the 13th and 14th? 15th and 16th?

The only team with 2 1st rounders is Anaheim I believe.

But anyways, I would probably want it to atleast be 18-19th overall for our 6th.

[theminister]

Lehkonen is also a year older than Kapanen and 1 year older can make alot of differences when you are young.

When I say Kapanen has defense to fall back on that is only if all things go wrong and he loses his offensive abilities. Now, if he doesn't lose his offensive abilities and continues to progress he can become a Marian Hossa type of player with skills on both side of the puck.

Lehkonen was the same age when drafted and exceeded Kapanen's output.

[Warhippy]

That would all depend on who the Canucks are high on and where they think they can still get him though. If it's a player they feel isn't likely to go until closer to 10th, then sure, move down a few spots and maybe get an extra 2nd rounder.

If they aren't high on anyone else though and think the one they are high on could go 7th or 8th if we trade down then I'd think we'd just pick that player. We could have an agreement with the Jets for example they wouldn't take who we wanted with the 6th and we get the 9th overall, but then we'd have no guarantee Carolina or Toronto wouldn't take the player in question.

Otherwise if they can't get the player they want or trade up, and don't really like anyone else enough or can't trade down and still get who they want, then why not just trade our pick?

I don't know, if trading down still in to the top 10 meant we still got a great player plus say a 2nd and 3rd....would you do it?

Say to the Canes or the Jets our 1st for their 1st 2nd and 3rd.

Would you consider it Elvis?

[TOMapleLaughs]

Ritchie is a generational phenom, there hasn't been a big player that skilled in junior in years

He's kinda like Zack Kassian. He's kinda like Brandon Sutter. Stafford? Hanzal? Chris Stewart or Andrew Ladd, perhaps. These are around the expectations i'd have for Ritchie, if he pans out.

Not sure if any of them qualify as 'generational phenoms' or are as rare as you say.

Steve Bernier, Joe Colborne, Trevor Lewis, and Ryan O'Marra are other guys who Ritchie may turn into being like.

Hell, even Taylor Pyatt was a junior scoring star.

[theminister]

I don't know, if trading down still in to the top 10 meant we still got a great player plus say a 2nd and 3rd....would you do it?

Say to the Canes or the Jets our 1st for their 1st 2nd and 3rd.

Would you consider it Elvis?

I would, if the player we want is gone.

[Plum]

Nylander is the top scorer at the U18. 7 points in 3 games.

Fiala is 3rd at the U18 with 6 points in 3 games.

Jakub Vrana is 4th in points and has the most goals in the tournaments. 5 points, 4 of them being goals in 3 games.

[Horvat]

Nylander is the top scorer at the U18.

Hmm interesting, who are the top scorers for each team?

[theminister]

Nylander is the top scorer at the U18. 7 points in 3 games.

Fiala is 3rd at the U18 with 6 points in 3 games.

Jakub Vrana is 4th in points and has the most goals in the tournaments. 5 points, 4 of them being goals in 3 games.

Shocking.