The Rebuild Kicked Off With Acquiring Bo, & Was Completed at 2019 Draft!

[The Lock]

On 2018-04-14 at 7:34 PM, CanadianRugby said:

Lind, Gadjovich & Demko aren't fictitious players.  

Benning has a history of drafting well in the 2nd round. 

Baer & other Canucks added as part of restock haven't resulted in wins, which was the only reason most of them were brought in.  

In a rebuild, nothing is more important than draft picks.  

 

The only good thing that came out of the retool is that it failed as badly as it could have.  Worst team in the league over the last 3 years, so we've been getting the top picks that we needed.  

I think the desire for more draft picks really depends.

 

Considering only so many draft picks can be signed due to contract limit, that means that the more draft picks a GM has, the more players are let go after the time expires to sign those picks; whereas, the number of picks signed stays the same. Also, consider that each pick acquired means that something is given up to acquire that pick. Picks are not free (obviously).

 

This enters in the question: how many picks are good and where does the value in acquiring such picks makes it infeasible to acquire more? If a GM is good at drafting, then theoretically, that GM wouldn't need as many draft picks to do well and departing with players that GM wants to keep could mean that GM is giving away players for draft picks he wouldn't sign anyway.

 

Now, obviously, there's the potential argument that can be made of seeing more prospects do well means the quality of the pool can get better, but does it mean that? How does one determine who's going to make it and who doesn't if there are a whole bunch of prospect neck and neck. If the pool is good enough, suddenly, good prospects are not being signed simply because there's not enough contract slots and who's to say the prospect let go is not the prospect that would have ultimately made it onto the team rather than the one kept?

 

So, while I would love for us to have more picks, I don't think it's nearly as simple as some people make it out to be on these boards. I wish I could agree with your and think things are so clear cut that we need more picks, but I just don't think the world works that way unfortunately.

 

Perhaps it's an unconventional train of thought on my part, but I'd rather us have quality over quantity any day.

Edited April 16, 2018 by The Lock

[ForsbergTheGreat]

39 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I think the desire for more draft picks really depends.

 

Considering only so many draft picks can be signed due to contract limit, that means that the more draft picks a GM has, the more players are let go after the time expires to sign those picks; whereas, the number of picks signed stays the same. Also, consider that each pick acquired means that something is given up to acquire that pick. Picks are not free (obviously).

I've seen this argument made a lot but i don't really see the basis for it.  Trading for a pick vs trading for a young prospect really has no difference effect on the contract limit.  Motte takes up a contract just the same as a draft pick would.  The difference is the immediate effect, as with the pick you don't need to sign right away thus not taking up a contract. 

 

39 minutes ago, The Lock said:

This enters in the question: how many picks are good and where does the value in acquiring such picks makes it infeasible to acquire more? If a GM is good at drafting, then theoretically, that GM wouldn't need as many draft picks to do well and departing with players that GM wants to keep could mean that GM is giving away players for draft picks he wouldn't sign anyway.

I also don't see how you get this conclusion.  If a batter has a high batting average you don't see, technically we don't need him up there as much as a person with a low batting average.  You want the batter up there as often as possible to increase your homeruns.

 

39 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Now, obviously, there's the potential argument that can be made of seeing more prospects do well means the quality of the pool can get better, but does it mean that? How does one determine who's going to make it and who doesn't if there are a whole bunch of prospect neck and neck. If the pool is good enough, suddenly, good prospects are not being signed simply because there's not enough contract slots and who's to say the prospect let go is not the prospect that would have ultimately made it onto the team rather than the one kept?

The contact limit doesn't come into play, and I've never really seen it been used as a negative.  Having too many good assets is not a bad thing.  You can trade those assets for value. 

 

39 minutes ago, The Lock said:

So, while I would love for us to have more picks, I don't think it's nearly as simple as some people make it out to be on these boards. I wish I could agree with your and think things are so clear cut that we need more picks, but I just don't think the world works that way unfortunately.

Perhaps it's an unconventional train of thought on my part, but I'd rather us have quality over quantity any day.

Drafting more doesn't reduce the quality though, not when the person making the draft choices is the same.  No one is saying quality over quantity, we are saying more quality.  

[The_Rocket]

On 2018-04-14 at 8:24 PM, CanadianRugby said:

How is saying that he's not a superstar, dumping on him?  I like Baertschi too.

Sorry didn’t mean you specifically. I hurst mean I here people say he’s not worth much and Canucks are better off getting rid of him. Imo he’s easily worth more than the 2nd we gave up for him and if the Canucks were to trade him it wouldn’t surprise me to see a first round pick involved. 

[Gaudette Celly]

22 hours ago, oldnews said:

Meanwhile those idiots in Boston and that retoolol?

Top line with a 73rd overall, a 45th overall and a 25th overall.....no high picks, no elite talent there.  So much fail.

Marchand, Bergeron, Pastrnak getting exposed by the Shanaplan.

Impossible.  Tank + #allthepickz + 37-year-olds = cup

[The Lock]

53 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I've seen this argument made a lot but i don't really see the basis for it.  Trading for a pick vs trading for a young prospect really has no difference effect on the contract limit.  Motte takes up a contract just the same as a draft pick would.  The difference is the immediate effect, as with the pick you don't need to sign right away thus not taking up a contract. 

 

I also don't see how you get this conclusion.  If a batter has a high batting average you don't see, technically we don't need him up there as much as a person with a low batting average.  You want the batter up there as often as possible to increase your homeruns.

 

The contact limit doesn't come into play, and I've never really seen it been used as a negative.  Having too many good assets is not a bad thing.  You can trade those assets for value. 

 

Drafting more doesn't reduce the quality though, not when the person making the draft choices is the same.  No one is saying quality over quantity, we are saying more quality.  

The thing is, when you trade for a player, sure it's another contract, but often times a contract is also given up in return. Even with trading for a pick where you give up a contract, that's still giving room to sign another contract in the meantime, or claim one off waivers or whatever. I also want to point out that I questioned where the point becomes too much. Getting a couple of extra picks is great, but there also comes a point where it's diminishing returns when you can't sign all of your prospects and you give up your assets to get those diminishing returns.

 

Except with batters, last I checked there's a rotation that happens. That could be thought of as the contract limit and having more quality batters over quantity would clearly become better.

 

Okay, so you have a bunch of assets you can trade for value. What's the value of those assets and how much extra value do really get out of trading them? Perhaps we end up with a Vey who is a fringe NHLer with potential and we get a decent pick, or perhaps we don't. I get what you are saying that the chances are there.

 

The quality is reduced from what we give up in terms of assets to get those draft picks. Getting 5 more draft picks costs us current assets and if we can't sign those players and have no gaurentee of getting value later on (compared with the assets we are giving up clearly having value) it's the risk we take. Again, diminishing returns.

 

Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against getting more picks. I just see some of these other teams with 11+ draft picks and wonder how much more does it really benefit them?

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against getting more picks. I just see some of these other teams with 11+ draft picks and wonder how much more does it really benefit them?

Just look at how many mid and late round picks TOR has playing on their (currently playoff dominating) team, from their 11 billion picks, for all the evidence you need. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by aGENT

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 hours ago, The Lock said:

The thing is, when you trade for a player, sure it's another contract, but often times a contract is also given up in return. Even with trading for a pick where you give up a contract, that's still giving room to sign another contract in the meantime, or claim one off waivers or whatever. I also want to point out that I questioned where the point becomes too much. Getting a couple of extra picks is great, but there also comes a point where it's diminishing returns when you can't sign all of your prospects and you give up your assets to get those diminishing returns.

 

Except with batters, last I checked there's a rotation that happens. That could be thought of as the contract limit and having more quality batters over quantity would clearly become better.

 

Okay, so you have a bunch of assets you can trade for value. What's the value of those assets and how much extra value do really get out of trading them? Perhaps we end up with a Vey who is a fringe NHLer with potential and we get a decent pick, or perhaps we don't. I get what you are saying that the chances are there.

 

The quality is reduced from what we give up in terms of assets to get those draft picks. Getting 5 more draft picks costs us current assets and if we can't sign those players and have no gaurentee of getting value later on (compared with the assets we are giving up clearly having value) it's the risk we take. Again, diminishing returns.

 

Don't get me wrong btw, I'm not against getting more picks. I just see some of these other teams with 11+ draft picks and wonder how much more does it really benefit them?

Again picks and prospects take up exact same amount of contracts so there really isn’t a valid argument.  The benefit of picks is you aren’t forced to sign the right away. We waited 3 years before we signed gaudette. Pettersson isn’t even signed yet. It give us a way to hold them as our property without taking up a contract. Prospects don’t have that option. 

 

In a closed market like the Nhl you don’t really have diminishing returns. You do have diminishing value in players that are aging an our upcoming UFA who you aren’t likely to resign, these are th exact types Either way its a strange argument to have. Having too many assets is never going to be a bad thing. If there comes a day where we have 50 contracts all with significant value, the last thing you’d hear me do is complain but to each their own I guess. 

 

As for how much it benefits a team, that all depends on how good your scouting department is. But the fact that the majority of rebuilding teams choose this method should be enough merit in itself 

 

I find this to be a very strange argument being made, like people are trying really hard to find/almost make up logic.  I believe this because had JB been able to get multiple picks like he said he tried to do at the trade deadline, we likely wouldn't be hearing this point be made. 

 

Canucks currently sit with 6 picks this year, if we get 3 picks in return for Tanev (similar to Hamonic) and possibly a pick or two for moving out a combination of (Baertschi/Granlund/Hutton/Goldy/MDZ/Ganger) and or trade down like we did last year (turning the 4th round pick into a 5th + 6th).  Are you still going to present this opinion that having many picks isn't really a good thing?

Edited April 16, 2018 by ForsbergTheGreat

[ForsbergTheGreat]

57 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Just look at how many mid and late round picks TOR has playing on their (currently playoff dominating) team, from their 11 billion picks, for all the evidence you need. 

In fairness mid round picks take time,  2015 was the first time the leafs picked above average since shanahan took over. 

Out of their 9 picks Marner and Dermott are in the NHL and 6 of the other 7 picks have all spent time in the AHL on the Marlies this year.  Their 6th round pick, Stephen Desrocher is only one that hasn't.   But again, that also depends on a teams scouting department.  If your scouting department sucks (like the oilers) chances are the players you pick, are also going to suck. 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

10 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Impossible.  Tank + #allthepickz + 37-year-olds = cup

= Patrick freakin Marleau to teach the kids how to be a pro. 

= A great young roster with a fair prospect pool, #allthepickz, of their own, too

 

Currently in the playoffs and expectedly losing to the best team in the NHL, while the Canucks have... #prozpectsz and the Sedins’ feelings intact. 

 

Fallacy. 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Just look at how many mid and late round picks TOR has playing on their (currently playoff dominating) team, from their 11 billion picks, for all the evidence you need. 

Comets vs Marlies starts soon.

Many more rookies skated for the Marlies than the Comets this season. 

The Leafs might be losing to the Bruins, and why wouldn’t they be, but their prospect pool will soon be head-to-head against the Canucks’.

 

Pretty hard to dump on the Leafs prospects unless it’s just to show your fanaticism, which is tolerable on a fan-site. Fill your boots. Maybe you’ll have bragging rights after this Utica series. You’d (we’d) better hope so. 

[Hugor Hill]

58 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Again picks and prospects take up exact same amount of contracts so there really isn’t a valid argument.  The benefit of picks is you aren’t forced to sign the right away. We waited 3 years before we signed gaudette. Pettersson isn’t even signed yet. It give us a way to hold them as our property without taking up a contract. Prospects don’t have that option. 

 

 

In a closed market like the Nhl you don’t really have diminishing returns. You do have diminishing value in players that are aging an our upcoming UFA who you aren’t likely to resign, these are th exact types Either way its a strange argument to have. Having too many assets is never going to be a bad thing. If there comes a day where we have 50 contracts all with significant value, the last thing you’d hear me do is complain but to each their own I guess. 

 

As for how much it benefits a team, that all depends on how good your scouting department is. But the fact that the majority of rebuilding teams choose this method should be enough merit in itself 

Deeeeeeeeep....

 

 

[aGENT]

46 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Comets vs Marlies starts soon.

Many more rookies skated for the Marlies than the Comets this season. 

The Leafs might be losing to the Bruins, and why wouldn’t they be, but their prospect pool will soon be head-to-head against the Canucks’.

 

Pretty hard to dump on the Leafs prospects unless it’s just to show your fanaticism, which is tolerable on a fan-site. Fill your boots. Maybe you’ll have bragging rights after this Utica series. You’d (we’d) better hope so. 

 We still don't have the majority of our prospects in Utica, even with the ones air dropped in recently. 

 

I see you have the same myopia in that regard as the G-man 

[joe-max]

6 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Again picks and prospects take up exact same amount of contracts so there really isn’t a valid argument.  The benefit of picks is you aren’t forced to sign the right away. We waited 3 years before we signed gaudette. Pettersson isn’t even signed yet. It give us a way to hold them as our property without taking up a contract. Prospects don’t have that option. 

 

In a closed market like the Nhl you don’t really have diminishing returns. You do have diminishing value in players that are aging an our upcoming UFA who you aren’t likely to resign, these are th exact types Either way its a strange argument to have. Having too many assets is never going to be a bad thing. If there comes a day where we have 50 contracts all with significant value, the last thing you’d hear me do is complain but to each their own I guess. 

 

Prospects can lose their value very quickly. Who would trade a fourth round pick for Zhukenov right now? It probably didn't even take one college season until everybody realized Patrick White wasn't worth anything. Mallet (2nd round) scored 1 point in the season after he was drafted. Daniel Rahimi's (3rd round) career high in any league he has ever played in is 14. You won't get much for that.

 

Three years is still relatively early to give up on a player. Sometimes it is obvious that he will not turn out, but not always.

 

Quote

As for how much it benefits a team, that all depends on how good your scouting department is. But the fact that the majority of rebuilding teams choose this method should be enough merit in itself 

 

I find this to be a very strange argument being made, like people are trying really hard to find/almost make up logic.  I believe this because had JB been able to get multiple picks like he said he tried to do at the trade deadline, we likely wouldn't be hearing this point be made. 

 

Canucks currently sit with 6 picks this year, if we get 3 picks in return for Tanev (similar to Hamonic) and possibly a pick or two for moving out a combination of (Baertschi/Granlund/Hutton/Goldy/MDZ/Ganger) and or trade down like we did last year (turning the 4th round pick into a 5th + 6th).  Are you still going to present this opinion that having many picks isn't really a good thing?

We are basically on the same page and also The Lock wouldn't mind another pick or two, it's more about the general notion that hoarding picks is the holy grail.

 

Developing player is complicated. It requires diligence, patience, a lot of tough decision. A lot of scouting. Taking Juolevi out of junior and having him play in Finland and working with Salo certainly required a lot of phone calls, discussions, negotiations. I'm pretty sure JB put a lot of effort into this. You cannot do that for every prospect, at least not if there are 10 of them per draft. 

 

Even if roster sport are available, for proper development your youngsters require playing time. For some players Europe is an option for a while, but at one point you will have to see your prospects on North American ice against men. You cannot groom 8 defensemen into top players at the same time. Who gets valuable power play or crunch time? Who should get top minutes next year in Utica? Mceneny, Brisebois, Chatfield, Sautner, Juolevi, Brassard? That's already six options. Imagine they had two or three more. 

 

Trading for players like Leipsic, Baertschi, Pouliot etc. is a gamble like a pick, but a more calculable one. It's a viable option.

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, joe-max said:

Prospects can lose their value very quickly. Who would trade a fourth round pick for Zhukenov right now? It probably didn't even take one college season until everybody realized Patrick White wasn't worth anything. Mallet (2nd round) scored 1 point in the season after he was drafted. Daniel Rahimi's (3rd round) career high in any league he has ever played in is 14. You won't get much for that.

 

Three years is still relatively early to give up on a player. Sometimes it is obvious that he will not turn out, but not always.

 

We are basically on the same page and also The Lock wouldn't mind another pick or two, it's more about the general notion that hoarding picks is the holy grail.

 

Developing player is complicated. It requires diligence, patience, a lot of tough decision. A lot of scouting. Taking Juolevi out of junior and having him play in Finland and working with Salo certainly required a lot of phone calls, discussions, negotiations. I'm pretty sure JB put a lot of effort into this. You cannot do that for every prospect, at least not if there are 10 of them per draft. 

 

Even if roster sport are available, for proper development your youngsters require playing time. For some players Europe is an option for a while, but at one point you will have to see your prospects on North American ice against men. You cannot groom 8 defensemen into top players at the same time. Who gets valuable power play or crunch time? Who should get top minutes next year in Utica? Mceneny, Brisebois, Chatfield, Sautner, Juolevi, Brassard? That's already six options. Imagine they had two or three more. 

 

Trading for players like Leipsic, Baertschi, Pouliot etc. is a gamble like a pick, but a more calculable one. It's a viable option.

I've never had a problem with using a second or third pick for a former high draft pick with upside, or a former low pick playing extremely well .... Second and third rounders dont usually play in the NHL, Bear, Vey, Pouliot were all low risk ventures, nobody is expecting top line or top pairing production from these guys but there is an increased expectation based on the "what we could have got instead" because undoubtedly, someone from the second or third round is going to be extraordinary, and we miss out.

 

They call them lottery tickets for a reason, once every ten picks a second rounder will have an average seven year NHL career, even less likely they will be a star.   Bear looks to be a lock for that so Benning is way ahead, even if Pouliot joins Vey (and for third rounders the odds are even more extreme).  

 

The fact Benning has found two gems in the fifth and third round in Gaudette and Tryamkin adds fodder to the "what we could of had " fire, but in reality we should be happy for both scenarios, Bear and likely Pouliot are NHLers, circumventing the odds, and Gaudette and Tryamkin are both incredible picks, fifth rounders hardly ever develop into even depth injury replacement guys. 

 

Next year should be the first year we really get to see Bennings picks come up in pairs (or droves), Pettersson and Dahlen could be the Sedin replacement strategy, Gaudette will get an extended trial period, and will likely not go down, and Juolevi plus Demko could also see action, plus possibly this year's pick.  Having Bear and Pouliot already in play makes us better than the likely return, and adds youth that's a bit older to spread out the age gap of the next core a little too.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by IBatch

[spook007]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

I've never had a problem with using a second or third pick for a former high draft pick with upside, or a former low pick playing extremely well .... Second and third rounders dont usually play in the NHL, Bear, Vey, Pouliot were all low risk ventures, nobody is expecting top line or top pairing production from these guys but there is an increased expectation based on the "what we could have got instead" because undoubtedly, someone from the second or third round is going to be extraordinary, and we miss out.

 

They call them lottery tickets for a reason, once every ten picks a second rounder will have an average seven year NHL career, even less likely they will be a star.   Bear looks to be a lock for that so Benning is way ahead, even if Pouliot joins Vey (and for third rounders the odds are even more extreme).  

 

The fact Benning has found two gems in the fifth round in Gaudette and Tryamkin adds fodder to the "what we could of had " fire, but in reality we should be happy for both scenarios, Bear and likely Pouliot are NHLers, circumventing the odds, and Gaudette and Tryamkin are both incredible picks, fifth rounders hardly ever develop into even depth injury replacement guys. 

 

Next year should be the first year we really get to see Bennings picks come up in pairs (or droves), Pettersson and Dahlen could be the Sedin replacement strategy, Gaudette will get an extended trial period, and will likely not go down, and Juolevi plus Demko could also see action, plus possibly this year's pick.  Having Bear and Pouliot already in play makes us better than the likely return, and adds youth that's a bit older to spread out the age gap of the next core a little too.

Here's a thought...

There is actually twice as much chance of us picking top 3 this year as there is of us picking a second rounder playing in the NHL for 7 years.... Although with JB ability to draft, you'll have think they odds are better for his 2nd rounder to be a good NHL'er.... 

I agree though with what you're saying... This is also why I am very apprehensive of trading down.

On another note... Tryamkin was a 3rd round pick.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

30 minutes ago, spook007 said:

Here's a thought...

There is actually twice as much chance of us picking top 3 this year as there is of us picking a second rounder playing in the NHL for 7 years.... Although with JB ability to draft, you'll have think they odds are better for his 2nd rounder to be a good NHL'er.... 

I agree though with what you're saying... This is also why I am very apprehensive of trading down.

On another note... Tryamkin was a 3rd round pick.

 

Not sure how to work the point, but how does JB’s drafting record compare against the average?

 

He must be getting hits more frequently with his choices, so how would that correlate to that stat we see for how often picks make an impact in the NHL?

 

Anyone?

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by 189lb enforcers?

[spook007]

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Not sure how to work the point, but how does JB’s drafting records compare against the average?

 

He must be getting hits more frequently with his choices, so how would that correlate to that stat we see for how often picks make an impact in the NHL?

 

Anyone?

 

 

Yip good question... not sure to be honest.

[189lb enforcers?]

Just now, spook007 said:

Yip good question... not sure to be honest.

Must be some calculus keeners reading.

 

I’ve long made assumptions here about his drafting record, which should finally see a maturation and stats, for his first draft at least.

 

I have advocated for extra picks for his ‘drafting acumen’, baseless as they’ve been, coming from me. I make no apologies for my acertions or my laziness to figure it out myself, but I would like to verify my opinion with something more than my eye-test. 

 

Rebuilding with extra picks, by an above average drafting regime, has been my rebuild strategy preference, not that I’ve gotten my way... yet. 

 

His picks after the the first round have quite a few gems, prospects mostly, but so far so good. The clock is ticking though. I’d much rather have NHL, impact, playing kids than prospects to play the grade-game with. 

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Must be some calculus keeners reading.

 

I’ve long made assumptions here about his drafting record, which should finally see a maturation and stats, for his first draft at least.

 

I have advocated for extra picks for his ‘drafting acumen’, baseless as they’ve been, coming from me. I make no apologies for my acertions or my laziness to figure it out myself, but I would like to verify my opinion with something more than my eye-test. 

 

Rebuilding with extra picks, by an above average drafting regime, has been my rebuild strategy preference, not that I’ve gotten my way... yet. 

 

His picks after the the first round have quite a few gems, prospects mostly, but so far so good. The clock is ticking though. I’d much rather have NHL, impact, playing kids than prospects to play the grade-game with. 

 

 

I like your comment about the “clock is ticking”.  There is a definite time period for the length of a rebuild.  Then the new core group need to play, to see what they are.  Once we get beyond that time frame, that core is getting old.

i wonder how long the time is for the rebuild to be completed?  7 years?  Then on to the next one?

[189lb enforcers?]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I like your comment about the “clock is ticking”.  There is a definite time period for the length of a rebuild.  Then the new core group need to play, to see what they are.  Once we get beyond that time frame, that core is getting old.

i wonder how long the time is for the rebuild to be completed?  7 years?  Then on to the next one?

I don’t think the rebuilt core is there yet and by the time it is, Horvat and Boeser might be looking at new contracts.

 

I am not sold on the new core or the supporting cast of kids. A lot will have to go right for this group to compete for a cup. The D is especially suspect. Even Demko is still a question mark. Being so slight and playing the way he does, will the Canucks version of McJesus, EP, become injury riddled? So much has to go right. Does that sound like Canucks Luck to you? 

 

Utica’s playoffs might provide some answers regarding the prospects. The Penticton prospect tourney should be Vancouver’s this year. Accidental Tanking for years has produced a prospect pool which should smash anybody else’s by now. Will it? 

 

I am excited to find out what we have to cheer for. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by 189lb enforcers?