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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I checked rankings, and he seems to be a guy right about where we pick.  If it’s between him and Gunther which his the higher upside to be a play driving winger?  

Guenther has the higher offensive potential. But any one of these kids could develop a cut ahead of the rest. I like Guenther a tad bit more especially for our Canucks. He’s a bit bigger and has a better shot.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

Well, ultimately, draft choices come down to a personal decision of who you think is better, but every year, most experts are wrong at the draft table, and the best of the class is not picked first. So, really, the ranking system used today, is very imperfect anyways. 

 

Numbers and rankings are subjective at best, so I don't see your point. I see you trying to justify an imperfect system.

 

The point I am making is that the players being ranked are for the most part, being ranked into a list of players where this guy is better than that guy, but the fact is, how do you really separate 2 players that are extremely close in actual talent, but play different positions in different leagues. What I suggest is that those that are grouped close together have no difference in value, so in fact you could choose any of the group and not be wrong, as in most cases, the list is ultimately wrong anyways. (Which is just about always proven in redrafts...aka hind sight.) 

 

The problem is not, whether you like one kid over another in a grouping, but whether your rankings or grouping are correct, and whether you reach outside your rankings.......think Virtanen, or even Juolevi.

 

It is all subjective, and in most drafts, you could look back and say that you could have taken any of these guys and had a better result that what you had.

 

It is not to say, you do not scout and breakdown the list, but rather afterwards, where you have the info, and you are sitting in the middle of a draft, needing to pick a kid, needing a defenseman, but the defenseman is one number below this other kid. or there are 2 defenseman, who do you pick, well again Benning went off his list and they took Juolevi, and have been proven wrong......so I don't get your objection. or you do it on a forward and then you find out Virtanen was 32nd on every body else's list. 

Edited by janisahockeynut
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

Well said. At some points the players are so close it's nearly impossible to rank them one over another so tiers are very useful. Similar in a way to fantasy football drafting. When this close sometimes you have visualize who out of several players can you picture making an impact, or even simply being a fit on your team.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

I like this idea of groups or tiers of drafting.  I’m thinking, with this draft class, a lot of teams’ tiers (or groups) will be different.  Is Beniers in the top tier, or is Clark?  I’m thinking Power might be the only guy in all teams’ top group.  Then it’s going to be all over the place.  Lambos and Ceulemans and Svechkov will be in some teams’ top ten.  I fudged your groups a bit.

1. Power 

2. Clark, Beniers, Eklund, McTavish

3. Edvinsson, Hughes, Wallstadt

4. Geunther, Svechkov, Johnson, Ceulemans, Lambos

Edited by Alflives
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can really see a good player falling to us! I see McTavish being a Center and playing the way he does I can see him going 5th or 6th to Columbus or Detroit. If he goes 5th I can see Detroit taking Wellstedt. One more of these skilled guys we didn’t think will make it to us should be there. Hopefully it’s whom Benning wants (likely one of the top 4 dmen) otherwise I feel like he flips our pick for Reinhart. It’s not what I want I can just see Benning doing it lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

Yeah you have a pretty healthy take on this Jan, its hard for Jim to get this "wrong" but my guess is the usual suspects will find fault with the pick :P

 

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@HighOnHockey

 

I am serious here, because I want to know

 

But with so many players, in lower rounds

 

It must be very hard to rank them

 

Are you able to explain this to me, I am sure it is the same process

 

But for us novice's, we have to trust pro scouting services, because we don't get the exposure to these guys, and for me, they tend to blend in too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, ultimately, draft choices come down to a personal decision of who you thin is better, but every year, most experts are wrong at the draft table, and the best of the class is not picked first. So, really, the ranking system used today, is very imperfect anyways. 

 

Numbers and rankings are subjective at best, so I don't see your point. I see you trying to justify an imperfect system.

 

The point I am making is that the players being ranked are for the most part, being ranked into a list of players where this guy is better than that guy, but the fact is, how do you really separate 2 players that are extremely close in actual talent, but play different positions in different leagues. What I suggest is that those that are grouped close together have no difference in value, so in fact you could choose any of the group and not be wrong, as in most cases, the list is ultimately wrong anyways. (Which is just about always proven in redrafts...aka hind sight.) 

 

The problem is not, whether you like one kid over another in a grouping, but whether your rankings or grouping are correct, and whether you reach outside your rankings.......think Virtanen, or even Juolevi.

 

It is all subjective, and in most drafts, you could look back and say that you could have taken any of these guys and had a better result that what you had.

 

It is not to say, you do not scout and breakdown the list, but rather afterwards, where you have the info, and you are sitting in the middle of a draft, needing to pick a kid, needing a defenseman, but the defenseman is one number below this other kid. or there are 2 defenseman, who do you pick, well again Benning went off his list and they took Juolevi, and have been proven wrong......so I don't get your objection. or you do it on a forward and then you find out Virtanen was 32nd on every body else's list. 

It is not subjective. It absolutely is imperfect, which is very different than subjective. There is a right and a wrong answer. There are better and worse assessments. If you're looking for perfection, you're in the wrong place. I'm not trying to justify anything. It is what it is. You can be indecisive, dilly dally and smell the flowers all you want, when it gets right down to it, GMs need to make a decision. It's a billion dollar industry; every organization has investors and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and those valuations are impacted by success and failure on the ice and at the draft table. Every scout's reputation, promotion, job, career, is on the line with every pick. I remember you talking once about ranking prospects using a points system or some such thing, but that's not at all how it works.

 

I don't know exactly how things go in a scouting room, and I'm sure every team is a little different, but it isn't like they take a democratic vote and every scout's opinion is worth one point. Basically you have a bunch of scouts arguing their case for their players, but the area scouts only know their own region's players very well, so there are also crossover scouts and head scouts who are trying to get a look at as many players from different regions as possible, so that they can compare across regions and break deadlocks. For teams with very early picks, certainly the DAS and even GM or AGM will have seen the top few players and be involved in the pick themselves, but overwhelmingly it is just knowing and trusting your scouts. Being a scout is about evaluating players, but being a head scout is about evaluating the evaluators.

 

I'll use the example of the Ottawa Senators scouting staff again, because I know that group inside and out. Sorry, I wish I could do this with the Canucks (hopefully I'll get there soon). The Sens hired a few new scouts a couple years back. One was Anders Ostberg, and one was Bobby Strumm Jr. So with them being new to the group, of course they aren't getting much say with the first round picks initially. GM Dorion and DAS Trent Mann have their core group of Bob Janecyk, Don Boyd, Mikko Ruutu who are most heavily relied upon for the early picks, i.e. they get the most say at the top of the list. But teams need to build trust in new scouts, so they give tryouts with area picks in later rounds. This is where an area scout is the only one familiar with a given player and is very high on said player, so they bump them up the list a bit. Anders Ostberg got a 4th rounder in 2019 who was way off the board, a kid called Viktor Lodin. Lodin hasn't turned out all that well, so Ostberg isn't gaining big trust points. He got a 5th rounder last year called Erik Engstrand. On the other hand, Bobby Strumm Jr. got an area pick in 2018 in the 5th round, called Angus Crookshank. Crookshank is looking like a gem of a pick, so Strumm earns trust. In 2019 Strumm would have had some say in Lassi Thomson 19th overall (although also Mikko Ruutu and George Fargher would have been heavily involved there, as well as obviously the head scout Trent Mann) and in 2020 Ridly Greig 27th overall would have been a joint effort by Fargher and Strumm. So you can see how Strumm is gradually moving up the ranks, while Ostberg will continue to be given area picks late until he starts to hit on some, or is eventually let go.

 

So that's the jist of it. I listened to an interview with Robert Kron recently, and he was saying that as an area scout he would sometimes see a player 30 or 40 times before the draft, to be certain. So no, the idea that two players are tied on a team's list is meaningless. The scouting staff isn't one cohesive 10-headed Hydra that can think that way. It is a bunch of flawed humans who each bring a piece of the puzzle, and the head scouts work together with all of them to try to organize that information into a cohesive picture. Of course it is going to be messy and imperfect, not to even mention the fact that scouting is pretty hard to begin with.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, what about both? What about moving up for Clarke and picking up a player or 2?

 

Let's just say that after the 5th pick, Clarke is still on the table....and just for laughs......Power, Benier, Hughes, Guenther,  and Eklund are gone

 

So, we know, that it is very possible that Detroit will not take a RHD at this point, because they have Seider, it is not to say they would not, but they they have other targets too

 

So, McTavish, Johnson, Wallstedt, Clarke and Edvinsson are left on the table.............

 

Detroit looks at the next 2 picks after theirs...........San Jose, and LA 

 

Now the question is who do the 2 teams take, if Clarke is off the table, and is the incentive that Vancouver gives, worth enough to take one of the players left after SJ and LA pick.

 

I would say a 2022-2nd might be enough to have Detroit and Vancouver swap 1st's............... 

 

That in no way, gets in front of a 2022-1st in a better draft for Reinhart, so I don't quite know what the concern is. 

 

Maybe we go crazy and offer Tampa our 2022 - 1st (unprotected), DiPietro and Woo for Cernak and they take it?

 

Now you have..........short term

 

Hughes.......Cernak

Rathbone....Myers

 

and you have.....long term

 

Hughes........Cernak

Rathbone.....Clarke

 

So, like I said, you do not necessarily have to not have one to get the other..................

Well if we somehow get cernak then im all in with horvat and miller. I mean that right there proves we wanna win now and in the future. If we roll into next season with the left side of quinn rathbone Jouveli and maybe edler uggh id rather just trade miller cause we aint making playoffs with that

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AC Readership said:

I don't get the talk of trading of the 2022 1st and/or 2023 1st cause I don't think the Canucks will be a playoff team next season and the year after, if anything you want more tickets for the talents coming out the next 2 years.

 

Miller definitely can get a 1st plus.

If J.B. is to trade the 9 OA pick, it is likely to be on the day of draft. I think he and the scouts would like to see which prospects may fall to the 9th spot in this uncertain draft. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

If J.B. is to trade the 9 OA pick, it is likely to be on the day of draft. I think he and the scouts would like to see which prospects may fall to the 9th spot in this uncertain draft. 

At that time we will already know of any moves we have done with the ED. So things will be much more clear atvthe time of the draft of our needs.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flickyoursedin said:

I can really see a good player falling to us! I see McTavish being a Center and playing the way he does I can see him going 5th or 6th to Columbus or Detroit. If he goes 5th I can see Detroit taking Wellstedt. One more of these skilled guys we didn’t think will make it to us should be there. Hopefully it’s whom Benning wants (likely one of the top 4 dmen) otherwise I feel like he flips our pick for Reinhart. It’s not what I want I can just see Benning doing it lol.

good think is that Jim needs to move out cap before they can sign Reinhart. I doubt very much that he will be successful in moving out cap. Not to mention that several other teams are in on Reinhart too. Columbus seems like to be the frontrunners on Reinhart. They are pushing really hard to get him. If I remember correctly Columbus has three 1st round picks in this years draft. They can afford to trade away one 1st round pick and they have the cap space to sign Reinhart even in the range 6.5m - 7.0m.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HighOnHockey said:

It is not subjective. It absolutely is imperfect, which is very different than subjective. There is a right and a wrong answer. There are better and worse assessments. If you're looking for perfection, you're in the wrong place. I'm not trying to justify anything. It is what it is. You can be indecisive, dilly dally and smell the flowers all you want, when it gets right down to it, GMs need to make a decision. It's a billion dollar industry; every organization has investors and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and those valuations are impacted by success and failure on the ice and at the draft table. Every scout's reputation, promotion, job, career, is on the line with every pick. I remember you talking once about ranking prospects using a points system or some such thing, but that's not at all how it works.

 

I don't know exactly how things go in a scouting room, and I'm sure every team is a little different, but it isn't like they take a democratic vote and every scout's opinion is worth one point. Basically you have a bunch of scouts arguing their case for their players, but the area scouts only know their own region's players very well, so there are also crossover scouts and head scouts who are trying to get a look at as many players from different regions as possible, so that they can compare across regions and break deadlocks. For teams with very early picks, certainly the DAS and even GM or AGM will have seen the top few players and be involved in the pick themselves, but overwhelmingly it is just knowing and trusting your scouts. Being a scout is about evaluating players, but being a head scout is about evaluating the evaluators.

 

I'll use the example of the Ottawa Senators scouting staff again, because I know that group inside and out. Sorry, I wish I could do this with the Canucks (hopefully I'll get there soon). The Sens hired a few new scouts a couple years back. One was Anders Ostberg, and one was Bobby Strumm Jr. So with them being new to the group, of course they aren't getting much say with the first round picks initially. GM Dorion and DAS Trent Mann have their core group of Bob Janecyk, Don Boyd, Mikko Ruutu who are most heavily relied upon for the early picks, i.e. they get the most say at the top of the list. But teams need to build trust in new scouts, so they give tryouts with area picks in later rounds. This is where an area scout is the only one familiar with a given player and is very high on said player, so they bump them up the list a bit. Anders Ostberg got a 4th rounder in 2019 who was way off the board, a kid called Viktor Lodin. Lodin hasn't turned out all that well, so Ostberg isn't gaining big trust points. He got a 5th rounder last year called Erik Engstrand. On the other hand, Bobby Strumm Jr. got an area pick in 2018 in the 5th round, called Angus Crookshank. Crookshank is looking like a gem of a pick, so Strumm earns trust. In 2019 Strumm would have had some say in Lassi Thomson 19th overall (although also Mikko Ruutu and George Fargher would have been heavily involved there, as well as obviously the head scout Trent Mann) and in 2020 Ridly Greig 27th overall would have been a joint effort by Fargher and Strumm. So you can see how Strumm is gradually moving up the ranks, while Ostberg will continue to be given area picks late until he starts to hit on some, or is eventually let go.

 

So that's the jist of it. I listened to an interview with Robert Kron recently, and he was saying that as an area scout he would sometimes see a player 30 or 40 times before the draft, to be certain. So no, the idea that two players are tied on a team's list is meaningless. The scouting staff isn't one cohesive 10-headed Hydra that can think that way. It is a bunch of flawed humans who each bring a piece of the puzzle, and the head scouts work together with all of them to try to organize that information into a cohesive picture. Of course it is going to be messy and imperfect, not to even mention the fact that scouting is pretty hard to begin with.

If these lists are set in stone by every team why do you see the scouting team debating and taking a bunch of time before going up the podium to make their pick? Why aren't they just immediately going up and simply taking the next name on the list.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gawdzukes said:

If these lists are set in stone by every team why do you see the scouting team debating and taking a bunch of time before going up the podium to make their pick? Why aren't they just immediately going up and simply taking the next name on the list.

Maybe waiting to see if any previously talked about trade scenarios with other teams come up?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

good think is that Jim needs to move out cap before they can sign Reinhart. I doubt very much that he will be successful in moving out cap. Not to mention that several other teams are in on Reinhart too. Columbus seems like to be the frontrunners on Reinhart. They are pushing really hard to get him. If I remember correctly Columbus has three 1st round picks in this years draft. They can afford to trade away one 1st round pick and they have the cap space to sign Reinhart even in the range 6.5m - 7.0m.

What if Reinhart agrees to reasonable extension with Vancouver prior to such a trade and Buffalo takes Eriksson to help facilitate the deal. If they offered Reinhart for 9th and Eriksson’s last year of his contract. If the top 4 dmen are gone this could be a deal Benning is thinking about.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

What if Reinhart agrees to reasonable extension with Vancouver prior to such a trade and Buffalo takes Eriksson to help facilitate the deal. If they offered Reinhart for 9th and Eriksson’s last year of his contract. If the top 4 dmen are gone this could be a deal Benning is thinking about.

That trade scenario works for me.  Would adding Rhino allow us to move a younger winger for a younger D man?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe waiting to see if any previously talked about trade scenarios with other teams come up?  

That's definitely possible although it seems to happen with such regularity. It really seems as if they're still debating that selection right up until it's made. Like I've heard them confirming to each other the guy they picking which leads me to believe it's not entirely set in stone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to CBJ - #9 and Schmidt

to VAN - #24 and 2022 1st

 

Draft Ceulemans, or even Raty

 

2022 Draft is supposed to be real good

 

CBJ likes this because they get a replacement for Jones and get two picks in the Top 10

 

VAN gets a good prospect and a great investment for next year's Draft

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...