With the premature departure of Juolevi - do you still think JB is a drafting genius?

[Kevin Biestra]

9 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

Yes Virtanen is a bust for his position, however in every metric he is still a mid first round pick in a pretty weak draft.

 

Yes if you line them all up in a redraft by games played he goes somewhere mid-1st.  But like I said, we got a close up look.  The guy was only in the lineup because of sunk costs and the hope that he would live up to his draft position, and that was squeaking into the lineup of a crap team that finished at the bottom of the league nearly every season.  I mean, we all saw Virtanen.  Did he really turn out substantially better and contribute more than, say, 180 game Haydn Fleury...

 

He just played more games because we wasted more time on him.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Kevin Biestra

[Kurgom]

4 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

As of this writing, Virtanen is 25th overall in points for the 2016 draft (as an aside, McCann is 14th.... :-()).  Virtanen would probably drop about 7-10 more spots given that there are good goalies (Demko) and other stay-at-home defensemen that need to be considered, but overall, yeah, Virtanen still might be worthy of being considered a late 1st round pick.  He's a bust as a #6 obviously, but he still performed at a level consistent with that of a late 1st rounder/high 2nd rounder.   We still got 4 full seasons out of Jake, which is also consistent with that of a late 1st rounder/high 2nd rounder I believe.  

 

Our only outright bust was Juolevi.

Come on dude. We got garbage play out of Virtanen for 4 years hoping he would get better, if he was on a successful playoff team he wouldn't have played more than a handful of games. Now he'll never be in the NHL again and is doing drugs and abusing women in Russia. What else do you call that but a huge bust for #6 overall?

[Patel Bure]

6 minutes ago, Kurgom said:

Come on dude. We got garbage play out of Virtanen for 4 years hoping he would get better, if he was on a successful playoff team he wouldn't have played more than a handful of games. Now he'll never be in the NHL again and is doing drugs and abusing women in Russia. What else do you call that but a huge bust for #6 overall?

I’m not disagreeing with you that he was a huge bust for 6th overall.  Of course he was.  What I’m saying is that based on his overall production (which actually included a fairly decent 19-20 season with 18 goals and 18 assists), Virtanen’s production, as of right now, is consistent with that of a late 1st rounder.  

13-14 years from now, I think Virtanen’s production and 4 full seasons of play will put him at around a mid-to-lower end 2nd round calibre draftee.  
 

The point of my post is that while Jake Virtanen is easily a bust for #6 overall, there have been far far worse......like Juolevi for instance.  4 seasons and 100 points isn’t exactly Hall of Fame Material, but it likely is more overall production than 25% of draft picks that have ever played (which would easily put Virtanen in the 2nd round).

[IBatch]

47 minutes ago, IBatch said:

slimmer

 

31 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I still think Virtanen is a bust, games played be damned.  In this case, we were able to see the quality of games whereas we might just have to go with the games stat with someone from another team.  He wasn't a stop gap until younger guys developed, he wasn't a glue guy, he wasn't a defensive guy, just a "blue chip" offensive talent who scored very few points.  He was just a waste of a roster spot where someone else could have developed.

 

On top of that there were character questions before the pick was made and...holy moley did that turn out to be the case.

 

As to Chris Phillips...  Can't judge him too harshly.  His draft year was crap, maybe worse than the Sedin year.  There were very few players that turned out better from that draft, even though Phillips was pretty middling as first overall picks go.

Sure - but the point is still the point - scouts look for 400 games from a sixth overall as the "par" - and JV would have certainly made that without covid and his other issues.   And yes i don't like the pick either despite that.    First overalls? 700 games... people overrate picks and what the expectations are at least the majority of the CDC from what i've seen.   It's not meant to defend or idolize JB, but it is why he still has a job, hockey people know he's done well at the table - par for quantity, above par on quality of picks. 

[IBatch]

21 minutes ago, Kurgom said:

Come on dude. We got garbage play out of Virtanen for 4 years hoping he would get better, if he was on a successful playoff team he wouldn't have played more than a handful of games. Now he'll never be in the NHL again and is doing drugs and abusing women in Russia. What else do you call that but a huge bust for #6 overall?

Your wrong as a huge bust which is my point earlier.   Last year was crap for most players on the team - the year before how did he do?  Pretty decently really and he's still at a place where more could occur.   400 games.   That's the "bust bar".   A total "bust" is a guy like Stajonov.  

[Kurgom]

39 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Your wrong as a huge bust which is my point earlier.   Last year was crap for most players on the team - the year before how did he do?  Pretty decently really and he's still at a place where more could occur.   400 games.   That's the "bust bar".   A total "bust" is a guy like Stajonov.  

We didn't even get anything in return for the 6th overall pick. No one wanted the bum and he's never playing another game. The Canucks organization is only poorer for Virtanen and didn't gain anything comparable to the value of what they used to obtain him. The games given to Virtanen could have helped a different player give value to the Canucks, either by increasing their trade value through personal performance or possibly becoming a staple on the team, what he was supposed to be. To me that is a bust in every sense of the word.

 

That kind of performance around anything would get you fired in most management positions in the world. But hockey is different, and Virtanen could just be a mistake of inexperience in the role. 

[RU SERIOUS]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

To my mind every team is alotted the same number of picks in the draft. Some teams get mostly high picks ( Vcr for one ) because they suffered a lousy season. It's up to management what they do with the alotted pick. The future success depends on these decissions. So trading a draft pick is a management choice, we don't see any one worth picking or the guy e want will be gone, what ever, but the decission lands at their door.  Apart of on ice skills scouts are supposed to check character and by all metrics Virtanen was a failure, ditto McCann and Juolevi it was of all things his skating, ..scouts failed to detect his skating flaws, absolutely unforvigable. I allways remember Alex Burrows summation of Virtanen the summer following his draft " Maybe he'll get it some day" that was a afilure just like Juolevi defiency with his skating.

 

I recall Button ranked Virtanen in the 2nd round and no insult intended but  I'd take his review over your, 

Correct, TSN ranked him 43rd and I recently heard (I believe on Donnie & Dhalli) there were another two hockey scouts who ranked him at 92 and 103 but can't recall their names or where i heard that.  No matter, he certainly was not a first round pick - in anyones book and is a borderline 4th line NHL player.  However, he should flourish in the Siberian Hockey League,

Edited October 16, 2021 by RU SERIOUS

[Fred65]

I hate returing again and again but this is all on JB

 

 

[cdgraham]

8 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yes if you line them all up in a redraft by games played he goes somewhere mid-1st.  But like I said, we got a close up look.  The guy was only in the lineup because of sunk costs and the hope that he would live up to his draft position, and that was squeaking into the lineup of a crap team that finished at the bottom of the league nearly every season.  I mean, we all saw Virtanen.  Did he really turn out substantially better and contribute more than, say, 180 game Haydn Fleury...

 

He just played more games because we wasted more time on him.

 

 

Agree but also disagree. He had 18 goals in a short season and would have scored 20 plus 40 points in that season. Close to 20 goals couple seasons before that. Was definitely a bottom 6 player at least. Fell off after signing his contract. 

Edited October 16, 2021 by cdgraham

[JeremyCuddles]

Funnily enough it's not Juolevi leaving that has me second guessing management and to an extent our ability to develop players. It's the handling of Lind and Gadjovich and non 1st rounders in general. Management has done a fantastic job in the 1st round (they don't all hit and we shouldn't expect them too), but pretty much all of them were developed in other leagues. Pettersson in the SHL, Boeser and Hughes in the NCAA, and Podkolzin in the KHL. But so far we have like two 2nd rounders worth a damn, and I can't recall anyone we drafted in the 3rd round and beyond playing meaningful games for us so far. Rathbone is well on his way though, but that's another NCAA developed player.

 

So I am wondering just how good are we are finding and developing talent outside the 1st round? Demko the only notable that we drafted and developed ourselves. Lind and Gadjovich we either drafted and didn't develop well. Or we drafted, developed and just let quality young talent go for nothing. Either way it's a knock on management or the development team or both since management put them in place. Are they drafting poorly beyond the 1st round or developing poorly? Neither makes them look good in the slightest. I don't wanna sound anti-Benning but I mean come on. If we're gonna call him a drafting genius we should probably hold him to said standards.

[TmanVan]

On 10/10/2021 at 7:00 PM, Phil_314 said:

Virtanen I would hold against JB honestly, knowing that Nylander and Ehlers were still around and we picked an early bloomer who physically dominated other teens on the ice but his game wasn't necessarily going to translate as a power forward.  Juolevi though is tougher to blame JB, since this pick came shortly after JV and the decision was to pick a defenseman.  Of course in hindsight Sergachev would have been a slam dunk, but Juolevi for his winning pedigree also looked pretty much like a "can't miss" guy.  It's hard to fault JB (unless he had foreknowledge) given Olli's injury history which would derail his development, but at the time of his selection he sounded very good:
 

  

Benning didn't look happy with his own pick. Like he knew he was making a mistake and it felt wrong. When the fans boo'ed he looked like he was going to cry. 

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, TmanVan said:

Benning didn't look happy with his own pick. Like he knew he was making a mistake and it felt wrong. When the fans boo'ed he looked like he was going to cry. 

It was just gas, from the chili dog he had for lunch.

 

                                    regards,  G.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I hate returing again and again but this is all on JB

 

 

Wow!  Found a promo video on JV.   Wonder what he had to say about Nylander and Ehlers etc.  This proves nothing other then what the exact same things the scouts had to say about JV during the draft getting recorded. 

[IBatch]

11 hours ago, Kurgom said:

We didn't even get anything in return for the 6th overall pick. No one wanted the bum and he's never playing another game. The Canucks organization is only poorer for Virtanen and didn't gain anything comparable to the value of what they used to obtain him. The games given to Virtanen could have helped a different player give value to the Canucks, either by increasing their trade value through personal performance or possibly becoming a staple on the team, what he was supposed to be. To me that is a bust in every sense of the word.

 

That kind of performance around anything would get you fired in most management positions in the world. But hockey is different, and Virtanen could just be a mistake of inexperience in the role. 

Your still missing the point.   Go back and look at all the drafts ... Torres is where JVs career was headed.   Not a bust, not a great pick either - but ahead of the par line as well.   People keep overvaluing picks.    I hate defending JV as a pick, especially now given the accusations, but under normal circumstances he'd have played 350ish games plus this year out ... hmmm so likely over 400 games.   Which happens to be what your HOPING to get on average, from a 6th overall.    Go back and look at all the drafts, and really look at them.   That would require an understanding of those players which i'm pretty sure you don't have.   Look at all the top 10 picks and then go through the entire first round year to year.    Aside from a 4-5  where some of the best guy that ever played were drafted - 79 plus, you might be surprised at how many misses there were.   A lot of them.  And there were misses even during that period of the best drafts all-time too.   

Edited October 16, 2021 by IBatch

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

Funnily enough it's not Juolevi leaving that has me second guessing management and to an extent our ability to develop players. It's the handling of Lind and Gadjovich and non 1st rounders in general. Management has done a fantastic job in the 1st round (they don't all hit and we shouldn't expect them too), but pretty much all of them were developed in other leagues. Pettersson in the SHL, Boeser and Hughes in the NCAA, and Podkolzin in the KHL. But so far we have like two 2nd rounders worth a damn, and I can't recall anyone we drafted in the 3rd round and beyond playing meaningful games for us so far. Rathbone is well on his way though, but that's another NCAA developed player.

 

So I am wondering just how good are we are finding and developing talent outside the 1st round? Demko the only notable that we drafted and developed ourselves. Lind and Gadjovich we either drafted and didn't develop well. Or we drafted, developed and just let quality young talent go for nothing. Either way it's a knock on management or the development team or both since management put them in place. Are they drafting poorly beyond the 1st round or developing poorly? Neither makes them look good in the slightest. I don't wanna sound anti-Benning but I mean come on. If we're gonna call him a drafting genius we should probably hold him to said standards.

You bet.  He's NOT a drafting genuis.   He's above average.   Thats it.   Comparing him to our history is another story, maybe that's why we've never won a cup?  

[BobbyClarke]

16 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Yes if you line them all up in a redraft by games played he goes somewhere mid-1st.  But like I said, we got a close up look.  The guy was only in the lineup because of sunk costs and the hope that he would live up to his draft position, and that was squeaking into the lineup of a crap team that finished at the bottom of the league nearly every season.  I mean, we all saw Virtanen.  Did he really turn out substantially better and contribute more than, say, 180 game Haydn Fleury...

 

He just played more games because we wasted more time on him.

 

 

This is spot on. There were a lot of flops in the first round that year, as there are every year. As well, there were some “serviceable“ players that have carved out NHL careers but you would not think of them as first rounders. Jake lacked character, work ethic, and desire.  No big deal there, sometimes it doesn’t work out. 
Oli I think will end up as a serviceable player. I don’t think he’ll be a star. We got a serviceable player in return who’s helping us right now. So I’m not bothered by that pick either. 
Some of our other picks look great. EP, Hughes, Hog, Bo, BB, Podz (etc). Look at the big picture. 

[grandmaster]

Why does this thread still continue to have comments? It’s quite clear that yes OJ was a bit of a bust but that pick ended up bringing in TWO decent players. Let’s not harp on this anymore! JB wins this in the end…

Edited October 16, 2021 by grandmaster

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, grandmaster said:

Why does this thread still continue to have comments? It’s quite clear that yes OJ was a bit of a bust but that pick ended up bringing in TWO decent players. Let’s not harp on this anymore! JB wins this in the end…

 

Why not discuss it?

 

And yeah Benning got a couple okay players back for Juolevi, pretty good under the circumstances, but they are a poor return for a 5th overall pick that is either not selected yet or hasn't failed totally.

[Fred65]

11 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

Funnily enough it's not Juolevi leaving that has me second guessing management and to an extent our ability to develop players. It's the handling of Lind and Gadjovich and non 1st rounders in general. Management has done a fantastic job in the 1st round (they don't all hit and we shouldn't expect them too), but pretty much all of them were developed in other leagues. Pettersson in the SHL, Boeser and Hughes in the NCAA, and Podkolzin in the KHL. But so far we have like two 2nd rounders worth a damn, and I can't recall anyone we drafted in the 3rd round and beyond playing meaningful games for us so far. Rathbone is well on his way though, but that's another NCAA developed player.

 

So I am wondering just how good are we are finding and developing talent outside the 1st round? Demko the only notable that we drafted and developed ourselves. Lind and Gadjovich we either drafted and didn't develop well. Or we drafted, developed and just let quality young talent go for nothing. Either way it's a knock on management or the development team or both since management put them in place. Are they drafting poorly beyond the 1st round or developing poorly? Neither makes them look good in the slightest. I don't wanna sound anti-Benning but I mean come on. If we're gonna call him a drafting genius we should probably hold him to said standards.

IMO drafting from EU or the NCAA is the best route for the Canucks. It allows them to get better and longer develpet in good leagues. So if in doubt at 3rd and later picks take aa NCAA or a EU propsect, problem solved 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

Why not discuss it?

 

And yeah Benning got a couple okay players back for Juolevi, pretty good under the circumstances, but they are a poor return for a 5th overall pick that is either not selected yet or hasn't failed totally.

For sure.   If OJ was traded to a contender, which Florida can be considered at this point given what they did last year and where they are in their cycle, and can crack their lineup .... then that shows that other teams see he has value still.    This trade could just whiff into nothingness over time ... or come back and really smear us too.   Gadj getting games in SJ makes complete sense with Kane's issues.    That one bugs me even more for some reason, mostly because he offers something our team lacks.   Net presence and toughness.   Could be the next Marroon.   Or better or maybe JB/TG got it right.  With OJ ... well maybe it was the bad skate.  Lying like he died - but it also showed that he gave it his all at the same time.   Bragging when he was drafted about his aversion to the gym though .... doesn't look like he's figured it out either.    In a couple of years nobody will hopefully be bringing either guy up again.