2021 NHL Entry Draft

[204CanucksFan]

4 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Maybe we finally win the lottery and trade that for extra picks.

If we win the lottery there is absolutely zero chance that they trade the first 1st overall selection in franchise history.

[appleboy]

6 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

If we win the lottery there is absolutely zero chance that they trade the first 1st overall selection in franchise history.

I disagree. There is no one player that stands out as being ahead of the pack.   A guy like McTavish could turn out to be the best player this year. Powers is interesting but there is question with decision making. Every player has question marks.

If you can take the first overall this year and turn it into two mid round picks then you have to consider it. 

[Nucker 67]

Everyone has their own list and they're probably all different. 

 

In 2018 - MTL took Kotkaniemi at #3 and ARI took Hayton at #5, then DET grabbed Zadina at #6 - giving VAN Hughes at #7. What a gift for Jim.

 

If VAN doesn't win the #1 or #2 lottery spot, it's possible some players fall to us: Johnson, Eklund, Guenther.  One or two GMs ahead of VAN could go off the board to get their player, kind of like what Benning did getting Pettersson. 

 

 

[HighOnHockey]

3 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I think the next 2 years are the most important 2 years, in terms of draft

 

As we are getting close to having our "Young team" core full.

 

My 3 thoughts are

 

#1. Will Schmidt and Myers really have any contribution to our playoff years?

 

#2. I think where we sit, we should consider positional need to some degree

 

#3. What are our positional needs?

 

My answer to question 3 is, RHD, RHD, RHD. I look at our young LHD and see a solid group of 3 LHD, who should be around for a long time. (8 to 10 years) and I see absolutely no one other than Woo, who "may" be in that grouping.

 

IMO, and I love McTavish and Svechkov, but we should be drafting Clarke or Ceulemans with our 1st, depending on the deal Benning can swing, and one of Morrow, Mailloux or Schmidt with our 2nd. It seems positional, but if we move up for Clarke he is as good as anyone at the top of the board and Ceulemans bounces around 13 to 16 on most boards and I think will move up a couple of spots in everyone's final boards (rankings). His numbers at the U18 underlines his ability to play with the best of his class and his points and plus minus were equal to Clarke's.

 

As for Morrow, Mailloux and Schmidt....both Morrow and Mailloux have been around the 26 to 37 OA rankings. I think Benning could get there. My points and Thoughts is, we move that little bit to fill our positional needs and not reach for a player. It will cost, but worth it OA.

 

No! Not you too! Drafting for needs is a loser's game. Value is everything. Look at real world business. Yes, when a new technology crops up and creates a new "need" or demand, Facebook and Google are going to get involved. But they aren't investing their best assets into filling these holes. They invest in their most valuable products, and then with the surplus value they accumulate, they can easily buy out the upstarts that are most successful in the areas they're lacking. It's the same thing in hockey. Value is everything. I know everyone says "if it's close, then you pick by need", but no. This is not how potential works. Close potential can equal drastic difference in long-term value. Think of Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD. Of course it's not a good analogy because one prospect's success doesn't negate that of another, but the point is, as close as it might seem right now, a few years later it might be the difference between NHL superstar and total bust. I feel like the chorus of an old gangster rap song, "BPA ova' erthang!" Look at Pittsburgh and Nashville a decade ago, loading up on surplus top four defensemen at the draft - and we know how high-demand top four D always are - so they were able to trade some for other needs down the road (Goligoski for Neal, Whitney for Kunitz, Jones for Johansen). Similarly for Columbus, drafting big, skilled centers (another high-demand asset) to then trade Johansen for Seth Jones and Dubois for Laine. LA was another good example when they won their Cup, parlaying Schenn, Johnson and Simmonds + for Jeff Carter and Mike Richards to fill needs at center. St. Louis also drafted very well during their rebuilding years, and were able to trade Lehtera, Berglund, Sobotka, Tage Thompson, and some first round picks (which they could afford to move because their prospect cupboard was so well stocked) for Brayden Schenn and Ryan O'Reilly to fill their needs at center.

[204CanucksFan]

19 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I disagree. There is no one player that stands out as being ahead of the pack.   A guy like McTavish could turn out to be the best player this year. Powers is interesting but there is question with decision making. Every player has question marks.

If you can take the first overall this year and turn it into two mid round picks then you have to consider it. 

I agree there is no clear cut 1st pick and that there is no way to really tell who will end up the best player from this class that doesn't change that the team will absolutely not be trading the franchises first ever 1st overall pick simply because it is the first time they have ever drafted 1st overall. As much as it could be justified it just won't happen due to the optics of it.

[J.I.A.H.N]

10 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

No! Not you too! Drafting for needs is a loser's game. Value is everything. Look at real world business. Yes, when a new technology crops up and creates a new "need" or demand, Facebook and Google are going to get involved. But they aren't investing their best assets into filling these holes. They invest in their most valuable products, and then with the surplus value they accumulate, they can easily buy out the upstarts that are most successful in the areas they're lacking. It's the same thing in hockey. Value is everything. I know everyone says "if it's close, then you pick by need", but no. This is not how potential works. Close potential can equal drastic difference in long-term value. Think of Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD. Of course it's not a good analogy because one prospect's success doesn't negate that of another, but the point is, as close as it might seem right now, a few years later it might be the difference between NHL superstar and total bust. I feel like the chorus of an old gangster rap song, "BPA ova' erthang!" Look at Pittsburgh and Nashville a decade ago, loading up on surplus top four defensemen at the draft - and we know how high-demand top four D always are - so they were able to trade some for other needs down the road (Goligoski for Neal, Whitney for Kunitz, Jones for Johansen). Similarly for Columbus, drafting big, skilled centers (another high-demand asset) to then trade Johansen for Seth Jones and Dubois for Laine. LA was another good example when they won their Cup, parlaying Schenn, Johnson and Simmonds + for Jeff Carter and Mike Richards to fill needs at center. St. Louis also drafted very well during their rebuilding years, and were able to trade Lehtera, Berglund, Sobotka, Tage Thompson, and some first round picks (which they could afford to move because their prospect cupboard was so well stocked) for Brayden Schenn and Ryan O'Reilly to fill their needs at center.

Excuse me, but I believe I said "MOVE UP" and that Ceulemans will be moved up on the new rakings and gave my reasons for. Same as for Morrow, Schmidt and Mailloux.

 

I did not say reach! 

[ShawnAntoski]

1 hour ago, 204CanucksFan said:

The problem is that the lottery is literally designed to punish the teams that finish at the bottom of the standings. Take a look at Buffalo's lottery odds for this season, they were the worst team in the league this year and all they get for it is a 1/6 chance of drafting 1st overall, which means they have 5/6 chance of falling back at least one spot with a nearly 70% chance they fall back 2 spots. 

 

At least they modified the rules going forward so that now only the top 2 positions are decided by the lottery. When Vancouver was in full on bottom out mode we would always end up losing the lottery and falling back because that where we were statistically most likely to end up. In 2016 we fell from 3rd to 5th because with the old rules that's where 3rd worst was most likely to pick with a 37.8% chance, in 2017 we fell from 2nd to 5th, again because that was statistically what we had the best odds of doing and in 2018 we fell from 6th to 7th again due to the statistics of the lottery format.

 

Even look at if we had lost all 3 games against Calgary, we would have had the 5th best odds due to Seattle getting the 3rd place slot automatically. In that slot we only get 3% better chance of winning 1st overall than our current position but we would be over 30% more likely to fall back in the draft again.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post about the lottery, in the last 5 draft lotteries, teams that finish in the bottom 5 have won 8 out of the 15 available slots and teams that finish 7th or higher have won 6 of 15. 

Good points and forgot about Seattle -so fifth spot before the three points.  My main point, is that the stigma of tanking is not acceptable to teams fan base and the owners know this fact; so the chances, of the Canucks ever getting a top 3/generational talent in the draft is slim to none - imo.  Ofcourse, moving forward the draft rules (more so) will have to be considered now when taking the tanking approach; &  (to a lesser extent) the overall talent of the draft, if it is worth it for the team and the backlash that comes with it.  

Edited May 21, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[J.I.A.H.N]

I would also say that no 2 GM's will have the same rankings, and that Morrow, could be 20th OA on one GM's board and 40th on anothers.

 

I will also say that with Benning and his approach, you will never know, exactly how he sees them.

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

I honestly think if we don't win the draft lottery we will trade our pick for reinhart. 

[Off_The_Schneid!]

18 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

I honestly think if we don't win the draft lottery we will trade our pick for reinhart. 

Due to salary cap we won’t be trading a pick straight up for Reinhardt 

i agree Benning likes the guy but don’t think we have the pieces to make it work 

They would want a Center back. Something we don’t have. Only option maybe JT Miller 

 

i would consider them fairly equal in value due to ages and salary”s that a straight one for one would do it. 

( considering Reinhardt wants out ) 

[Kenny Blankenship]

9 hours ago, John_Guest said:

I'm not as into it as some. I only know what I hear. This is what I hear:

 

Zachary LHeureux

Ht/Wt: 5'11"/196 lbs
Position: C/LW
Team: Halifax (QMJHL)


 

Zachary L'Heureux's Player Profile

Cam Robinson - Dobber Prospects - : "Something of a Richard out there, L’Hereaux walks the line between hard play and needless aggression. He screams checking line type."

Mike G. Morreale - NHL.com - Jan. 23rd: "L'Heureux is a power forward who has been compared to Columbus Blue Jackets forward Max Domi. The 17-year-old can play physical and has great hands."

Craig Button - TSN - Dec. 15th: "Can play the game with skill, power and with an edge. Competes hard and makes life uncomfortable for opponents due to his willingness to find ways past obstacles."

Sam Cosentino - Sportsnet - Nov. 27th: "Plays bigger than his 5-foot-11, 196-pound size."

Corey Pronman - The Athletic - Oct. 8th: "He makes himself noticeable whenever he’s on the ice and creates so much about the hard areas. He’s an imperfect player, though. At 5-foot-11, he’s an average skater, and I don’t think he sees the game that well."

Scott Wheeler - The Athletic - Sept. 14th: "He’s heavy on the puck, he doesn’t pass up a chance to finish a hit, he gravitates toward scrums, and he can beat you with ingenuity and creativity with the puck, which gives him, in theory, all situations upside and the kind of versatility teams covet as a player who could potentially play up and down the lineup."

Brayden Olafsson - Dobber Prospects - Sept. 12th: "L’Heureux is a dynamic power forward who has the ability to generate opportunities as a result of his combined creativity and physical presence. He leverages a surprisingly strong lower body and low center of gravity to overpower his bigger opponents when necessary."

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2021-nhl-draft/player-profiles/Zachary-LHeureux

Craig Button has him at 18

https://www.tsn.ca/blueliner-owen-power-tops-mckenzie-s-first-2021-draft-ranking-1.1561354

Like I said, just a 'Dark Horse' candidate.

Sounds like a hard pass for our first rounder. Would take a chance in the second. 

[Nucker 67]

7 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

Sounds like a hard pass for our first rounder. Would take a chance in the second. 

So far I agree, he could be anywhere from Motte to Hoglander. Save him for the 2nd round, if he's still there, which I doubt.

 

Say the Canucks end up picking 10th again. Should they trade the 10th for two later 1st rounders? Maybe grab L'Heureux and Morrow? 

[Kenny Blankenship]

8 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

So far I agree, he could be anywhere from Motte to Hoglander. Save him for the 2nd round, if he's still there, which I doubt.

 

Say the Canucks end up picking 10th again. Should they trade the 10th for two later 1st rounders? Maybe grab L'Heureux and Morrow? 

I just feel like we have more pressing needs than a physical player. Rhd and another play making center need to be addressed. From the sounds of it L’Heureux sounds like a max jones type, which I’d rather stay far far away from with our 1st. 

[JustABandwagoner]

7 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

Yep, 2022 looks absolutely stacked to me. Personally, I think Miroshnichenko is a clear number two right now, a tier above Lambert and Savoie. Of course it's still a year away so who knows, but Miro is a monster. Don't get me wrong, I love Lambert and I've seen flashes of brilliance from Savoie, but somewhat lost in all the hype of Bedard, Wright and Michkov at the U18s was that Russia's top line was led by two 2022-eligibles.Svechkov was the two-way center but the younger two were the offensive drivers. Yurov is a late birthday, but if he was eligible for this year's draft, he would have very seriously challenged for first overall. And Miroshnichenko is that blend of power and elite skill that every team is dying for. Nemec, Luneau, Salomonsson and Gleb Trikozov could all potentially challenge for spots in the top five too, and all look to be in the same tier as the top four or five players in this year's class.

Man.. the year we do poorly we get a significant weaker draft class  

[HKSR]

5 hours ago, 204CanucksFan said:

I agree there is no clear cut 1st pick and that there is no way to really tell who will end up the best player from this class that doesn't change that the team will absolutely not be trading the franchises first ever 1st overall pick simply because it is the first time they have ever drafted 1st overall. As much as it could be justified it just won't happen due to the optics of it.

So ummm... technically the Canucks held 1st overall in 1999 briefly, before they flipped it to Atlanta for 2nd overall (under the agreement that Atlanta selects Patrik Stefan). 

 

So the franchise's first ever 1st overall pick was traded ... for some skinny Swedish kid named Daniel Sedin.  Oh, they got his brother too... I think his name was Henrik.

[Bertuzzipunch]

5 hours ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

I honestly think if we don't win the draft lottery we will trade our pick for reinhart. 

Be nice to get reinhart for sure. younger than toffoli with lots of upside but really we cant afford to trade this pick. As an organization we need younger players that can join the team with cheaper contracts while our main core enters its prime.

[Bure_Pavel]

A lot of Mock drafts have us picking Fabian Lysell. While I wouldnt be upset if they picked him, need wise he doesnt fit the bill at all unless we trade Boeser or Podkolzin. The people who are high of Lysell are very high on him, skill and skating seem to be elite, but size and positional need are red flags. 

 

Future top seven + top 4:

 

? - Petey - Boeser

Hoglander - Horvat - Podkolzin

            3rd line center?

 

Hughes - ?

?  - Schmidt

 

 

We should probably draft a player that fits one of these needs unless management is confident a star is still available. 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Bure_Pavel

[JustABandwagoner]

1 hour ago, Bure_Pavel said:

A lot of Mock drafts have us picking Fabian Lysell. While I wouldnt be upset if they picked him, need wise he doesnt fit the bill at all unless we trade Boeser or Podkolzin. The people who are high of Lysell are very high on him, skill and skating seem to be elite, but size and positional need are red flags. 

 

Future top seven + top 4:

 

? - Petey - Boeser

Hoglander - Horvat - Podkolzin

            3rd line center?

 

Hughes - ?

?  - Schmidt

 

 

We should probably draft a player that fits one of these needs unless management is confident a star is still available. 

 

If we win #1 or #2 would u draft Beniers. I think if we somehow won its gonna be between Beniers and Clarke. Drafting Beniers means we can move Horvat to 3C 

[HighOnHockey]

7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Excuse me, but I believe I said "MOVE UP" and that Ceulemans will be moved up on the new rakings and gave my reasons for. Same as for Morrow, Schmidt and Mailloux.

 

I did not say reach! 

Lol, you're excused. I do think it's not out of the realm of possibility that some teams (maybe including the Canucks) consider Ceulemans a top ten pick. Things seem to really open up somewhere around 8. Strong chance that Power, Beniers, Hughes, Edvinsson, Clarke, Eklund, Johnson, Guenther are all in the majority of teams' top eight, in some order. Some will definitely have Lysell, Wallstedt, Sillinger mixed in there, and maybe a few others, but most likely all of those players will be gone by 8 or shortly after, and at that point it's pretty much the wild west.

[Rush17]

From the university of Michigan.. Owen Tower.