2019 NHL Entry Draft in Vancouver, BC

[The Great Canucks]

15 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

Teves, Rafferty, Brisebois, Sautner and Chatfield are at best going to be call ups do to injury as an NHL career in my honest opinion. Hughes is a top 4 for sure, we hope Woo can be that too but its still far too early to suggest that is at all a certainty.

 

So no, I dont feel we have good D depth, especially on the right side, but that is my opinion, you have your opinion. Wingers are way easier to sign and trade for than trying to find a quality steady D especially 1 who is right handed

Umm, no, wingers aren't easier to sign and trade for. We needed more forwards in our system, plain and simple. Our depth at wing actually isn't that great.

[Zoolander]

9 hours ago, stawns said:

I'm ecstatic to hear that.  They have a great young core, two excellent goaltenders, the beginnings of a good supporting cast with some size and a coach who likes his team to play an aggressive, hard nosed game.

 

I'm ready for some successes, I couldn't care less about anymore lottery picks.

Well.... one more lottery pick couldn't hurt.

 

But yee I'm ready to start winning some games too. 

 

I think we make the ploffs if we sign Nyquist or Myers.

[Canuck Surfer]

20 hours ago, aGENT said:

I never suggested we should never draft D (been a huge proponent of it actually, same as you) but this notion that the missed D taken in the 4th, 5th, 6th round is somehow going to magically fix our present woes for top 4 NHL D (or remotely move the needle in Utica either) is..

Its not simply the notion of finding top 4 D men in the 4, 5 , 6, & 7th round? Its about odds, and I'll get back to that.

 

I listened to, surprised me actually, a pointed description of BPA by Kevin Weekes. BPA is supposed to be the best player. But its also the ''best player for your organization.'' The player who will best fill your mould, the things you are trying yo do. Particularly after the top 10 are gone...

 

And Holland, from Detroit Edmonton. Its about fit, who you feel you can work with? Of the 5 or 6 major attributes; speed, gamesmanship, compete, puck skills, athletic ability? Athleticism dissipates fastest, and there always holes, or pieces missing in later rounds! Who can you envision being able to deploy, but still mask that weakness with your system, your other players?  Who do you sense you can teach to improve and mask their own weakness?  

 

I don't buy that by the time we drafted 8 players? That a defenceman was not BPA in any one of those situations.  Simple logic says a D will be 33% of the time.  

 

More complex logic, but even stronger logic, says past the three rounds. When the most advanced players are gone. the odds for finding a player of any variety are lower. So I agree with you there. Math says they had an agenda. They said as much as well; size & physicality.

 

But if you have  3 sure, or the closest to sure, forwards as players early?  And proven math says the 3rd round onward, odds of finding a good player any player, drop to between 15 & 20%.  And all the players require working with them. Developing them.  If you have a goal of finding D men, 3 or 4, even 5 of the last 5 guys we drafted should be D. Drafting 5 has enough odds, we should find one.

 

They had an agenda, and it was not D.

 

We have a weaker D.

 

I question the agenda.

[mll]

13 hours ago, Pure961089 said:

Cull is killing the development of our kids in Utica.  He’s under pressure from the Utica fan base to win games with players that have no hope of playing for the Canucks (Kero, Boucher) and unfortunately it’s to the detriment of development. I’m glad Hoglander is getting developed in the SHL and Podkolzin in the KHL and not in Utica.  Utica is the place where prospects go to die under Cull.   I’m glad Boeser never played in Utica, same with Pettersson, and Horvat only played a handful of games.  Not enough to destroy his confidence. I’m glad Palmu is finally getting some ice time, sure wasn’t going to get it playing for Cull.   Unless the priority in Utica changes to Development 1st players like Lind and Gadjovich are going to suffer.   

 

Utica's GM Ryan Johnson thinks they could - this was his criteria last summer for the type of veterans he wanted for Utica: 

"My other focus of concern was I want players that aren't done and have given up on trying to make it to the NHL. ... I didn't want to go out and get these journeymen, high-AHL deal players that knew that's just what they were." "I wanted guys that are still hungry, that are still trying to improve, that are still trying to take that jump."

 

[stawns]

51 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Its not simply the notion of finding top 4 D men in the 4, 5 , 6, & 7th round? Its about odds, and I'll get back to that.

 

I listened to, surprised me actually, a pointed description of BPA by Kevin Weekes. BPA is supposed to be the best player. But its also the ''best player for your organization.'' The player who will best fill your mould, the things you are trying yo do. Particularly after the top 10 are gone...

 

And Holland, from Detroit Edmonton. Its about fit, who you feel you can work with? Of the 5 or 6 major attributes; speed, gamesmanship, compete, puck skills, athletic ability? Athleticism dissipates fastest, and there always holes, or pieces missing in later rounds! Who can you envision being able to deploy, but still mask that weakness with your system, your other players?  Who do you sense you can teach to improve and mask their own weakness?  

 

I don't buy that by the time we drafted 8 players? That a defenceman was not BPA in any one of those situations.  Simple logic says a D will be 33% of the time.  

 

More complex logic, but even stronger logic, says past the three rounds. When the most advanced players are gone. the odds for finding a player of any variety are lower. So I agree with you there. Math says they had an agenda. They said as much as well; size & physicality.

 

But if you have  3 sure, or the closest to sure, forwards as players early?  And proven math says the 3rd round onward, odds of finding a good player any player, drop to between 15 & 20%.  And all the players require working with them. Developing them.  If you have a goal of finding D men, 3 or 4, even 5 of the last 5 guys we drafted should be D. Drafting 5 has enough odds, we should find one.

 

They had an agenda, and it was not D.

 

We have a weaker D.

 

I question the agenda.

He was pretty candid about finding d from other sources, like the NCAA........which he's done. 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Its not simply the notion of finding top 4 D men in the 4, 5 , 6, & 7th round? Its about odds, and I'll get back to that.

 

I listened to, surprised me actually, a pointed description of BPA by Kevin Weekes. BPA is supposed to be the best player. But its also the ''best player for your organization.'' The player who will best fill your mould, the things you are trying yo do. Particularly after the top 10 are gone...

 

And Holland, from Detroit Edmonton. Its about fit, who you feel you can work with? Of the 5 or 6 major attributes; speed, gamesmanship, compete, puck skills, athletic ability? Athleticism dissipates fastest, and there always holes, or pieces missing in later rounds! Who can you envision being able to deploy, but still mask that weakness with your system, your other players?  Who do you sense you can teach to improve and mask their own weakness?  

 

I don't buy that by the time we drafted 8 players? That a defenceman was not BPA in any one of those situations.  Simple logic says a D will be 33% of the time.  

 

More complex logic, but even stronger logic, says past the three rounds. When the most advanced players are gone. the odds for finding a player of any variety are lower. So I agree with you there. Math says they had an agenda. They said as much as well; size & physicality.

 

But if you have  3 sure, or the closest to sure, forwards as players early?  And proven math says the 3rd round onward, odds of finding a good player any player, drop to between 15 & 20%.  And all the players require working with them. Developing them.  If you have a goal of finding D men, 3 or 4, even 5 of the last 5 guys we drafted should be D. Drafting 5 has enough odds, we should find one.

 

They had an agenda, and it was not D.

 

We have a weaker D.

 

I question the agenda.

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.

[steviewonder20]

14 hours ago, R3aL said:

Well trading for Miller was our team deciding it’s over in the next two years whether we like it or not. We must buckle up and hope for the best

That’s exactly what this article is saying about the Canucks giving up a #1 pick to get Miller and that they are betting (gambling) on being a playoff team in the next two seasons. If we get a top RHD in FA, and if OJ shows his potential, and if Pods is here in a year, and if Tyramkin returns... a lot of ifs but it’s certainly possible.

 

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiUWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL9IBWGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL3NuLWFtcC8?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen

[73 Percent]

8 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

That’s exactly what this article is saying about the Canucks giving up a #1 pick to get Miller and that they are betting (gambling) on being a playoff team in the next two seasons. If we get a top RHD in FA, and if OJ shows his potential, and if Pods is here in a year, and if Tyramkin returns... a lot of ifs but it’s certainly possible.

 

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiUWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL9IBWGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL3NuLWFtcC8?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen

I dont necessarily look at it with individual ifs. Instead of 15 questionsask yourself 1. Will our additions/development gain us 9 more pts than it did this year.

 

I believe they will. Thats what we needed to make the show.

[vannuck59]

IF, IF, IF

LOL

JB could have hit a home run at this Draft instead he gambled a first on a player who may never play and a second on a smerf that may never play, Plus he left a couple of seconds on the table he should have traded for. I give him a bunt single.

[R3aL]

5 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said:

That’s exactly what this article is saying about the Canucks giving up a #1 pick to get Miller and that they are betting (gambling) on being a playoff team in the next two seasons. If we get a top RHD in FA, and if OJ shows his potential, and if Pods is here in a year, and if Tyramkin returns... a lot of ifs but it’s certainly possible.

 

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiUWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL9IBWGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnNwb3J0c25ldC5jYS9ob2NrZXkvbmhsL25obC1kcmFmdC13ZWVrZW5kLXRha2Vhd2F5cy1jYW51Y2tzLWdhbWJsaW5nL3NuLWFtcC8?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen

Like you said lots of ifs. I find if my plan is filled with ifs it needs to be rethought.

 

i am assuming LE is gone by any means necessary.

 

i am assumingthe canucks will sign 2 dmen a depth one like a Schenn and a top 4 one like Gardiner/Myers

 

if Gardiner:

 

Gardiner-Tanev

Edler-Hughes

Hutton-Stecher 

or

Gardiner-Tanev

Edler-Stecher

Hughes-Schenn 

 

if Myers:

 

Edler-Tanev

Hughes-Myers

Hutton-Stecher

 

OJ is at least a year away and I see him taking Hutton’s spot.

 

Tryamkin is at least a year away maybe 2 and maybe he’d take Tanevs spot, not on the top pairing but just the opening that would be there. I’m sure Podkolzin factor may help.

 

Podkolzin should be expected to play the two full years in the KHL as that is what he said he is going to do.

 

thats why I think the Canucks will be signing another UFA and it will be a top 6 forward for Bo and Pearson, like Lee or Nyquist (nyquist will be cheaper)

 

Miller-EP40-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Nyquist

 

bottom 6 will be a bit of a mess but they can duke it out at camp

 

Should be a bubble playoff team - so let’s hope for the best. Everyone needs to take a step forward and improve for us to make it to the post season.

 

if nyquist Miller Pearson all score 20+ goals and 50+ points. With Boeser Petey Horvat all over 30 goals and close to ppg would be the most productive top 6 we have had in a Long time certainly possible with an improved roster, improved d core and if Markstrom is at least as good as last year, if not better

[R3aL]

5 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

IF, IF, IF

LOL

JB could have hit a home run at this Draft instead he gambled a first on a player who may never play and a second on a smerf that may never play, Plus he left a couple of seconds on the table he should have traded for. I give him a bunt single.

Think you are being ignorantly harsh hear.

 

Podkolzin @ 10 is a homerun swing 

Hoglander is far from a smurf, the kid is a stud. 

 

All prospects may never play. We took two kids that have played with and will continue to play against men in their respected pro leagues. Both work incredibly hard and are relentless style players with fantastic conditioning. Hoglander slayed the combine. His size will not be an issue. His SHL production for his age was fantastic. 

 

Have you even watched either play a game or footage on them? They are very good players with high floors and high ceilings.  

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Its not simply the notion of finding top 4 D men in the 4, 5 , 6, & 7th round? Its about odds, and I'll get back to that.

 

I listened to, surprised me actually, a pointed description of BPA by Kevin Weekes. BPA is supposed to be the best player. But its also the ''best player for your organization.'' The player who will best fill your mould, the things you are trying yo do. Particularly after the top 10 are gone...

 

And Holland, from Detroit Edmonton. Its about fit, who you feel you can work with? Of the 5 or 6 major attributes; speed, gamesmanship, compete, puck skills, athletic ability? Athleticism dissipates fastest, and there always holes, or pieces missing in later rounds! Who can you envision being able to deploy, but still mask that weakness with your system, your other players?  Who do you sense you can teach to improve and mask their own weakness?  

 

I don't buy that by the time we drafted 8 players? That a defenceman was not BPA in any one of those situations.  Simple logic says a D will be 33% of the time.  

 

More complex logic, but even stronger logic, says past the three rounds. When the most advanced players are gone. the odds for finding a player of any variety are lower. So I agree with you there. Math says they had an agenda. They said as much as well; size & physicality.

 

But if you have  3 sure, or the closest to sure, forwards as players early?  And proven math says the 3rd round onward, odds of finding a good player any player, drop to between 15 & 20%.  And all the players require working with them. Developing them.  If you have a goal of finding D men, 3 or 4, even 5 of the last 5 guys we drafted should be D. Drafting 5 has enough odds, we should find one.

 

They had an agenda, and it was not D.

 

We have a weaker D.

 

I question the agenda.

We drafted 3 D last year and then signed 2 solid college FA's on top of giving time to well developing depth guys in Brisebois and Sautner. And we have Hughes coming, with Juolevi not far behind as well as guys like Rathbone in the pipeline, Tryamking likely to return next year...and by all accounts, they plan to be busy in the FA and trade markets over the next few weeks. This on top of a re-signed Edler and a solid young Stecher. 

 

Hutton/Tanev I think are on the move this summer or this year.

 

I'm not particularly concerned about the 'agenda' in regards to the D.

 

For whatever reason, they thought they had better options this year than D. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by aGENT

[vannuck59]

10 minutes ago, R3aL said:

Think you are being ignorantly harsh hear.

 

Podkolzin @ 10 is a homerun swing 

Hoglander is far from a smurf, the kid is a stud. 

 

All prospects may never play. We took two kids that have played with and will continue to play against men in their respected pro leagues. Both work incredibly hard and are relentless style players with fantastic conditioning. Hoglander slayed the combine. His size will not be an issue. His SHL production for his age was fantastic. 

 

Have you even watched either play a game or footage on them? They are very good players with high floors and high ceilings.  

No need for name  calling , We shall see , they may have high celling's but there are a lot of GMs who think other wise. Our First ,There is the Russian factor he may not want to play here or leave Russia KHL. Our Second small and skilled may be JG or Maybe JS who knows? my opinion 

Edited June 24, 2019 by vannuck59

[73 Percent]

12 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

No need for name  calling , We shall see , they may have high celling's but there are a lot of GMs who think other wise. Our First ,There is the Russian factor he may not want to play here or leave Russia KHL. Our Second small and skilled may be JG or Maybe JS who knows? my opinion 

I dont see any name calling in his post.

[vannuck59]

LOL

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Edited June 24, 2019 by vannuck59

[R3aL]

2 hours ago, vannuck59 said:

No need for name  calling , We shall see , they may have high celling's but there are a lot of GMs who think other wise. Our First ,There is the Russian factor he may not want to play here or leave Russia KHL. Our Second small and skilled may be JG or Maybe JS who knows? my opinion 

Didn’t call u a name I even made up a word 

 

ur post was pretty harsh bashing the picks and I don’t think it’s fair , and coming from a place where you actually know anything about the players he picked. You even called hoglander a name. I’ll be quick to defend Canucks that deserve it. Always.

 

if my post offended you I apologize but you were harsh on Jim Benning, Pods and Hoglander on the basis that pods is Russian and you labelled Hoglander a smurf. 

 

In my mind anyone who who has drawn that conclusion is harshly looking just at the shallow surface and doesn’t really know what they are talking about.

 

thats why I defended them and asked you if you have watched any footage or games on them at all.

 

pods said he’s coming to the NHL it is his dream, did you see how happy he was? Players who want to stay in Russia don’t get that happy with their families if they have no intent to play in the NHL. He has a 2 year contract no big deal, he’s gonna play with men and develop their then come NHL ready.

[Kanukfanatic]

21 hours 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

Tryamkin is 260

Edler is 230

OJ, Woo, and Hutton are all well over 200

Hughes is a phenom.

Stecher is a squirt.  

Haha....nice try. Edler is 215.

[flickyoursedin]

I love the picks I just wish we had our 3rd rounder and took Puistola, Dorofeyev or Kokkonen. Felt all three guys should have been early 2nd round picks.

[Alflives]

19 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Haha....nice try. Edler is 215.

I'm hearing Edler (to save costs for the team) is using a new, and much heavier stick, this coming season.  

[R3aL]

8 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

I love the picks I just wish we had our 3rd rounder and took Puistola, Dorofeyev or Kokkonen. Felt all three guys should have been early 2nd round picks.

Ya too bad probably had to include the third for them to accept the condition on the first. Would have been nice to get kokkonen I think