Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

2021 NHL Entry Draft


Noble 6

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

If Wallstedt is our best option at #9, I could see us trading down to #12 with Chicago and picking up a 2nd rounder.  Then we draft Lysall, Sillinger or Lucius.  

I'd love that option....  well scratch that, I'd love to see Wallstedt picked before us and to see one more team go off the board so that we get a choice of 2 great players that JB has his eye on.  

 

However if the top 8 are gone, and Wallstedt is left for us, then I'd prefer to trade down and pick up an extra pick.  I think that staying in the top 15 would be good enough to nab either Ratu or Sveckhov, and the price for that is usually a 2nd round pick.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

If Wallstedt is our best option at #9, I could see us trading down to #12 with Chicago and picking up a 2nd rounder.  Then we draft Lysall, Sillinger or Lucius.  

If we are giving Calgary an opportunity to draft a potential franchise goalie, we better be getting something significant back more than a 2nd rounder.

 

If we trade down to #12 though, Svechkov all the way!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a goalie guy, I'm loving all the Wallstedt talk.
Jesper is exceptional - I'd say he's an A-level goaltending prospect. Worthy of a high 1st round pick.


But Sebastian Cossa is a B+ goaltending prospect, and his ceiling is nearly as high. Not likely, but if he's there in the early 2nd round...

I would likely not use our top 10 draft pick on a goaltender (even though I'm a massive fan of JW, and consider him the best goalie prospect of the last 10 years), but I would absolutely gallop to the podium to take Cossa with a late 1st or early 2nd.

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Been told kings are very high on both johnson and gunther. 

LA Being high on Johnson makes me very happy. Hope he’s there and one of the dmen makes it to 8 and they pass over for Johnson that would be perfect!!

 

Hope u r right 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

I really didn't think Wallstedt would be considered, but maybe he's one of Benning's Top 9? 

 

I just figured since VAN has Demko, and DiPietro and Silovs are developing, they would be set up for years, but those two might not ever become regular NHL players, let alone good enough top become starters. 

 

Wallstedt would ensure their goaltending is secure for many years. Teams won't do squat in the playoffs without great goaltending. 

 

If not Wallstedt, could they get Cossa with the 2nd?

Cossa prolly goes first round too as some rankings have him higher than wallstedt 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nergish said:

As a goalie guy, I'm loving all the Wallstedt talk.
Jesper is exceptional - I'd say he's an A-level goaltending prospect. Worthy of a high 1st round pick.


But Sebastian Cossa is a B+ goaltending prospect, and his ceiling is nearly as high. Not likely, but if he's there in the early 2nd round...

I would likely not use our top 10 draft pick on a goaltender (even though I'm a massive fan of JW, and consider him the best goalie prospect of the last 10 years), but I would absolutely gallop to the podium to take Cossa with a late 1st or early 2nd.

 

 

 

How early is the Canucks’ second round pick?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hammertime said:

I dunno man.

Price, Flower, Brodeur, Luongo, Fuhr, Barasso, Rask, Dubnyk, Vasilevski, Spencer Knight looks like a beaut. All 1st round picks.

 

Rick Dipetro is more the exception than the rule.

 

I do like Sillinger as well though I shaved him and Svechkov off the list for simplicity as they are a bit more reaching than Lysell, Edvinsson.

I wouldn't through Dubnyk in there, he has never really lived up to the draft position, especially when you can get a good one in the second or third round.

 

There are a lot more high end misses than wins with goalie for my liking. For example. Jack Campbell taken at  in 2010, in 2011 just after Vasilevski was M Subban at 24  which didn't pan out, 2006 Bernier at 11, 2006 Helenius at 15.....

 

I'm going further than I want to but my point is that if you get a top ten pick you don't take a goalie.... they are just too unpredictable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

I wouldn't through Dubnyk in there, he has never really lived up to the draft position, especially when you can get a good one in the second or third round.

 

There are a lot more high end misses than wins with goalie for my liking. For example. Jack Campbell taken at  in 2010, in 2011 just after Vasilevski was M Subban at 24  which didn't pan out, 2006 Bernier at 11, 2006 Helenius at 15.....

 

I'm going further than I want to but my point is that if you get a top ten pick you don't take a goalie.... they are just too unpredictable

I’m not someone that thinks we should take a goalie necessarily, there’s other players I prefer but I also wouldn’t be mad if we landed a potential elite goalie as he could be the best player in this draft class. They are unpredictable because you could get a goalie that you mentioned or you can get a Price or a Fleury. But if you draft a forward or Dman you can also get Erik Johnson or Nail Yakupov or Jake Virtanen or Lias Andersson or a million other flops that didn’t play in net. There’s inherent risk at any position you draft, that’s why you hope your scouts have done their homework and you don’t draft a guy unless you’re confident in them. 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I’m not someone that thinks we should take a goalie necessarily, there’s other players I prefer but I also wouldn’t be mad if we landed a potential elite goalie as he could be the best player in this draft class. They are unpredictable because you could get a goalie that you mentioned or you can get a Price or a Fleury. But if you draft a forward or Dman you can also get Erik Johnson or Nail Yakupov or Jake Virtanen or Lias Andersson or a million other flops that didn’t play in net. There’s inherent risk at any position you draft, that’s why you hope your scouts have done their homework and you don’t draft a guy unless you’re confident in them. 

And even then those players could be complete busts as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

And even then those players could be complete busts as well. 

Absolutely. You just hope you scouted well enough and that people you have in place for player development can benefit the player. I was just saying regardless of position there is risk in all picks. And like I said there are players I would take over Wallstedt that will probably be at that number 9 spot for us, I just won’t be upset if we ended up taking him with his potential 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That would be between a high and mid round pick.


Definitely lots of NHLers taken around that spot historically.

 

So bodes well for the Canucks. Who would or could be available there at 41st? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

Absolutely. You just hope you scouted well enough and that people you have in place for player development can benefit the player. I was just saying regardless of position there is risk in all picks. And like I said there are players I would take over Wallstedt that will probably be at that number 9 spot for us, I just won’t be upset if we ended up taking him with his potential 

Yeah. I hear you. It’s not an exact science drafting players who are literally in their teens still. Lots of factors, and lots can (and do) change over a period of 2-3 years. I wouldn’t mind taking Wallstedt, if he’s as good as he’s being advertised. But we probably have other needs, right? Demko is locked in for another five years, he’s going to be a gem. Wallstedt I guess could either back up eventually. Could never have enough depth in the goaltending department. Especially since Vancouver has long been known as a goalie graveyard for such a long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

Yeah. I hear you. It’s not an exact science drafting players who are literally in their teens still. Lots of factors, and lots can (and do) change over a period of 2-3 years. I wouldn’t mind taking Wallstedt, if he’s as good as he’s being advertised. But we probably have other needs, right? Demko is locked in for another five years, he’s going to be a gem. Wallstedt I guess could either back up eventually. Could never have enough depth in the goaltending department. Especially since Vancouver has long been known as a goalie graveyard for such a long time. 

Worst case scenario, if we were to take Wallstedt and he forced our hand, is make a move and trade one for a position of need. But we absolutely have more pressing needs then Goalie. I think there’s a lot of players that can help this team win, when they’re NHL ready, that are position players. Our most pressing needs are RHD and C but I don’t see Clarke being available at 9 (so there goes the RHD) and guys like Eklund and Johnson look likely to be wingers as they progress even though they’re listed as C currently. McTavish is someone that people think may be around for our pick but given that he looks likely to stick at C he could certainly be gone before we pick, similar to Barrett Hayton a couple years ago. I think we are most likely to land a potential impact winger which I’m more then happy with despite the fact it’s not our biggest need 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

Worst case scenario, if we were to take Wallstedt and he forced our hand, is make a move and trade one for a position of need. But we absolutely have more pressing needs then Goalie. I think there’s a lot of players that can help this team win, when they’re NHL ready, that are position players. Our most pressing needs are RHD and C but I don’t see Clarke being available at 9 (so there goes the RHD) and guys like Eklund and Johnson look likely to be wingers as they progress even though they’re listed as C currently. McTavish is someone that people think may be around for our pick but given that he looks likely to stick at C he could certainly be gone before we pick, similar to Barrett Hayton a couple years ago. I think we are most likely to land a potential impact winger which I’m more then happy with despite the fact it’s not our biggest need 

Yeah im okay with a winger also. Miller wont be around forever so having a johnson or eklund could prove to be pretty valuable in the future but obviously id prefer a C or RHD this draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

Worst case scenario, if we were to take Wallstedt and he forced our hand, is make a move and trade one for a position of need. But we absolutely have more pressing needs then Goalie. I think there’s a lot of players that can help this team win, when they’re NHL ready, that are position players. Our most pressing needs are RHD and C but I don’t see Clarke being available at 9 (so there goes the RHD) and guys like Eklund and Johnson look likely to be wingers as they progress even though they’re listed as C currently. McTavish is someone that people think may be around for our pick but given that he looks likely to stick at C he could certainly be gone before we pick, similar to Barrett Hayton a couple years ago. I think we are most likely to land a potential impact winger which I’m more then happy with despite the fact it’s not our biggest need 

I think the Canucks could land a RHD prospect in the 2nd round or later. 

 

But yeah, with a top ten pick, gotta go with BPA, regardless of position. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

41st

Sorry to nitpick but it's the 40th overall since Arizona forfeits their first round pick this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

So bodes well for the Canucks. Who would or could be available there at 41st? 

Logan Stankoven could potentially slip to us like Nils Hoglander did...  

 

One of the Finnish youngsters will be probably available at 40 as well.  Heimosalmi, Koivunen or Tuomaala. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...