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

Stop overvaluing 1st round picks - they are JUST a pick.

Rate this topic


Dazzle
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Hoglander

Demko

Gaudette

 

Gaudette was a healthy scratch and went pointless in the playoffs, Hoglander looks good but is 6 games in. 

 

2 years from now there very well might be 3 great NHL'ers but a little early to say now 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Bob McKenzie's list has never been his own evaluation of players. It is him putting together different scouting lists and predicting where they will go in the draft.

 

That being said, Craig Button was the only one who got it right.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zhukini said:

Gaudette was a healthy scratch and went pointless in the playoffs, Hoglander looks good but is 6 games in. 

 

2 years from now there very well might be 3 great NHL'ers but a little early to say now 

At the end of the day, they are currently on the roster.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty long post to say very little.

 

Your main point is 1st rounders don't pan out sometimes and every GM gets them wrong once in a while. That's fine.

 

But 1st rounders are not "just a pick". That makes it sound like they're pretty much like any other pick, which is obviously completely wrong when you look at the career of an average 1st rounder vs average non-1st rounder.

 

If you're someone who believes that Benning shouldn't get blame for Virtanen and Juolevi, fine. But then how much credit should he get for Pettersson and Hughes? Can't be both ways. Eventually when you make enough 1st round picks picks you're going to get some good players.

 

I'd be more concerned with what Benning has done outside the 1st round:

- Gaudette @ 24 not an everyday NHLer

- Demko @ 25 not an everyday NHLer

- Madden gone for nothing (if he's even going to be anything)

- Tryamkin one season of replaceable level play and gone (Russian factor was always a thing with this pick)

- Forsling has at least played NHL games, but not for us, and we didn't get anything for him

 

So, we're left with Hoglander. And I know it's early, but he does look like a gem.

Not writing off Gaudette or Demko in anyway as I like both players, but right now we're at one probably and two maybes in 7 drafts (albeit still early to evaluate guys from the last two drafts). Don't think that's enough for a supposed draft guru, especially during a rebuild, given an average 1st round record.

 

EDIT: Last thing: any notion that a GM can't be blamed for bad draft results is a joke.

Are drafts somewhat/sometimes unpredictable? sure.

Is drafting a key part of a GM's job in any sport? Absolutely.

Are there better drafters than others? Of course.

Therefore, a GM should be evaluated on their draft record (duh).

Edited by kanucks25
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

a 1st round pick can also turn your team around, like when we drafted Hughes, Pettersson, Horvat and Boeser you ding dong! 

I was so mad when we traded Schneider for that 9th overall from NJ haha

 

Can you imagine if Horvat had ended up a Devil instead of our captain?

 

Or if we had ended up with Nolan Patrick or Cody Glass instead of Petey? Or anyone in Hughes' draft class instead of Hughes?

 

Come to think of it, 1st round picks can be pretty useful! Who knew?

Edited by ImConfused
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Pretty long post to say very little.

 

Your main point is 1st rounders don't pan out sometimes and every GM gets them wrong once in a while. That's fine.

 

But 1st rounders are not "just a pick". That makes it sound like they're pretty much like any other pick, which is obviously completely wrong when you look at the career of an average 1st rounder vs average non-1st rounder.

 

If you're someone who believes that Benning shouldn't get blame for Virtanen and Juolevi, fine. But then how much credit should he get for Pettersson and Hughes? Can't be both ways. Eventually when you make enough 1st round picks picks you're going to get some good players.

 

I'd be more concerned with what Benning has done outside the 1st round:

- Gaudette @ 24 not an everyday NHLer

- Demko @ 25 not an everyday NHLer

- Madden gone for nothing (if he's even going to be anything)

- Tryamkin one season of replaceable level play and gone (Russian factor was always a thing with this pick)

- Forsling has at least played NHL games, but not for us, and we didn't get anything for him

 

So, we're left with Hoglander. And I know it's early, but he does look like a gem.

Not writing off Gaudette or Demko in anyway as I like both players, but right now we're at one probably and two maybes in 7 drafts (albeit still early to evaluate guys from the last two drafts). Don't think that's enough for a supposed draft guru, especially during a rebuild, given an average 1st round record.

 

EDIT: Last thing: any notion that a GM can't be blamed for bad draft results is a joke.

Are drafts somewhat/sometimes unpredictable? sure.

Is drafting a key part of a GM's job in any sport? Absolutely.

Are there better drafters than others? Of course.

Therefore, a GM should be evaluated on their draft record (duh).

It is STILL just a pick. An unknown value, one that may drop after that player hits the ice (or not at all). That's not at all to say they aren't useful. I've indicated that teams like AZ who have missed on 1st rounders have significant issues with their rebuilds. So they are important, but they are not everything. And there's a reason why you have so many picks in each entry draft.

 

Actually, you've confused my point that I was trying to make. I said that players like Virtanen and Juolevi may or may not do better under a different system. We see so many picks (i.e. Dylan Strome) that get so much hype, only for them to falter. However, the success and failure, of course, should be a responsibility of a GM, including how they handled those picks/players. What I'm saying is, taking the entirety of Benning's work, the drafting and development of his players since 2014 has been overall very good.

 

His trades/free signings, on the other hand, have been less than stellar. And it is these points that are usually under the microscope. Yet people who have an axe to grind with Benning will decide to "rewrite" history to suit their narratives on this board. "Pettersson was picked by a European scout". "Oh, that's a Brackett pick". In the end, you are left with misleading angles about management's contributions.

 

This is what this board does. It is constantly in search of a scapegoat - similar to a Salem witch hunt. There is little rationality in this process or on this board.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DSVII said:

First Round picks absolutely are valuable. Yes, they are 'just' a pick, but your chances of finding a bonafide NHL player in the 1st round is pretty much almost guaranteed. You can absolutely make an argument a 1st is worth multiple picks in the further rounds. 

 

Probability-of-becoming-NHL-player-per-pick.png

 

Considering our luck so far with UFA free agents, I'd say a first round pick is probably more important for our team and the sole reason why Benning still has a job.

 

Active Canucks Players drafted by Benning

 

Petey (1st round)

Hughes (1st round)

Virtanen (1st round)

Juolevi (1st round)

Boeser (1st round)

 

Demko (2nd round)

Hoglander (2nd round)

 

Gaudette (5th round)

 

 

Right now, over a third of the league consists of 1st round players. With two thirds of the league being drafted in the first three rounds. 

NHL-players-per-round.png

 

Source

https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/#:~:text=Probabilities per draft round&text=74 per cent of first,between the top two rounds.

And I never denied any of what you said at all. But they are JUST a pick. Boston had THREE first round picks in 2015. Did you miss that part of the post?

 

You'd think that Boston would have been set for a cup run after that year of collecting picks. It's just not that simple as drafting 1st rounders. Our points will overlap at this point once we start talking about free agencies. It's not any good if you don't develop those picks.

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

And I never denied any of what you said at all. But they are JUST a pick. Boston had THREE first round picks. Did you miss that part of the post?

 

You'd think that Boston would have been set for a cup run after that year of collecting picks. It's just not that simple as drafting 1st rounders. Our points will overlap at this point once we start talking about free agencies.

 

 

What Boston did with their picks has nothing to do with the value of those picks at the time they had it. The fact remains they had the option to draft any combination of Kyle Connor, Chabot, Barzal, Boeser. Just because they didn't do it, doesn't change the fact that those picks gave them the option to.

 

Those picks are still extremely valuable and in more scenarios than not, Boston would have drafted an entire first line right there. For every disappointment you listed, I can list successes as well. This is confirmation bias. 

 

But since we are in agreement they are valuable. In what ways are people overvaluing 1st rounders? What asset in particular are people saying a 1st rounder is more valuable than that you are disagreeing with?


In terms with J.T Miller, the value was correct. The criticism on my end was the timing was wrong. We should have waited one more year before going all in considering the upcoming Cap issues with Petey and Hughes. 

Edited by DSVII
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still laugh at the Boston three consecutive 1rst round picks in that 2015 draft. Barzal was the clear cut BPA and should have been picked around 10th overall. The next highest ranked player was Kyle Conner and at 15,16 and 17th overall they probably should have had at least 1 if not 2 of those guys. I’ll give them a pass on Chabot because Zboril was ranked around the same if not higher in some mocks. But Boston if their scouts didn’t screw up that draft so bad and just followed NHL scouting BPA they could have had Barzal, Conner and Zboril.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After leaving BC in my mid-20’s and coming to Montreal in 2001 it’s become pretty clear to me that hockey knowledge in the general fan base is directly proportional to the number of months of out door hockey 

 

Hockey was not available when I was a kid growing up in Victoria to the general population, I knew no kids who played at my school.  We had something like 3-4 sheets available sheets of ice available in the late 70’s early 80’s in all of greater Victoria that I can think of.

 

Makes me wonder how many on this forum have actually played a Hockey.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbllpp said:

After leaving BC in my mid-20’s and coming to Montreal in 2001 it’s become pretty clear to me that hockey knowledge in the general fan base is directly proportional to the number of months of out door hockey 

 

Hockey was not available when I was a kid growing up in Victoria to the general population, I knew no kids who played at my school.  We had something like 3-4 sheets available sheets of ice available in the late 70’s early 80’s in all of greater Victoria that I can think of.

 

Makes me wonder how many on this forum have actually played a Hockey.

i played peewee bantam midget in okanogan and juvenile rep in saanich   the coach in saanich was worst coach i ever had no place teaching young adults wat a asshole   hockey players in vic couldnt take a hit and got all mad when they got destroyed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Boston screwed up majorly in the 2015 draft. They could of had Barzal, Chabot, and one of Boeser or Konecny, or as someone pointed out, Conner. And people bust Benning's chops. What a joke. Yeah, hindsight is an amazing thing, isn't it?

Edited by BarnBurner
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

@Dazzle Thanks for that comprehensive lesson for the whiners.

 

This might not be an easy season, for a variety of reasons..but there's just no appreciation for the talented youth/relative success we've enjoyed over the last 5, 6 months.

 

Prob a good time for a lil' CDC-break.

Should be renamed OCDC? :lol:

  • Haha 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of back and forth about value of 1st round draft picks vs. Players taken in the 1st round, and while I agree with OP about the fact that once taken it doesn't really matter where a player was drafted and that ALL GMs whiff on 1st round picks, I also agree that 1st round picks and players are extremely valuable. But that value is supposed to come from the fact that higher ranked players have higher skill and will be NHL ready much sooner, allowing for more games to be impactful with more team control than a late round pick as well as should have a higher impact in games.

 

Also a lot of people mentioning that most of the players drafted by Benning playing on the team currently are 1st round picks with the 3 exceptions that have already been mentioned. This just goes back to 1st rounders are typically able to compete in the NHL sooner than late picks. Because, yes, most of the Benning prospects playing are first rounders but the counter point to that is that as of right now 4 of the teams top 5 prospects, not on the team, were all drafted outside of the 1st round.

 

1. Vasili Podkolzon - 1st

2. Jack Rathbone - 4th

3. Michael DiPietro - 3rd

4. Kole Lind - 2nd

5. Jett Woo - 2nd

 

And as I'm sure many on this board will be quick to point out that they are just prospects and haven't done anything in the NHL at this point, which is a fair argument, I would counter by pointing out that every single one of these players has an XLS% (Expected Likelihood of Success percentage) over 50%. Which means that all them are currently considered better than 50/50 to play at least 200 NHL games based on statistical comparables. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...