2023 NHL Draft - Who Would You Have Selected?

[IBatch]

12 hours ago, Metal Face Doom said:

The right choice would have been BPA.  Not by positional need.  

We did that with Podz when he slipped to us (Benson fans) It never  work's  out like the pre-drafts.     And re-drafts always have some surprises too.    Agree with those that have stated RD's are very rarely traded, and high cost when they are.   First line centers too.   Seth Jones for Johanssen is an old trade now ... but a good example of what's considered a fair trade.   Top line C's and Top pairing RHD's are close in value. 
 

As for this draft "Best Swede Available".    And an organizational pick.    It was smart. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by IBatch

[shiznak]

I would have picked Matthew Wood.
 

Probably a top 5 pick, if his skating was top tier.

Edited July 1, 2023 by shiznak

[iinatcc]

the only correct answer in Round 1 

 

 

[hammertime]

With the complete benefit of hindsight I still can't make up my mind.

 

Round 1

Pick 11: PWF Daniil But/ Happy with Willander would have gone But though

 

Round 3

Pick 75: W Juraj Pekarcik/ Hunter was a great pick but I've been hoping for Pekarcik all year I would have taken him.

Pick 89: LD Artu Karki/ LD Terrell Goldsmith

 

Round 4

Pick 105: RD Cam Allen/ RD Bogdan Konyushkov

Pick 107: C Luca Pinelli/ LW Alex Ciernik

Pick 119: RD Arem Minnetian/ RD Carter Sotheran

 

There were 4 really good RD available to us in the 4th and 2 home run dinger fwds

 

Round 6

Pick 171: C Zeb Forsfjall/ LD Kristian Kostadinski/ LD Oskar Asplund/ LW Emil Jarventie

 

I don't hate how the draft went I think our 4th and beyond was very questionable but having a tantrum about 4ths is silly.  

Edited July 1, 2023 by hammertime

[TGokou]

I stand by Willander as that was my choice when the Canucks picked. Oliver Moore would've been right after. If Simashev was still available I would've picked him over Willander.

[TGokou]

22 hours ago, Metal Face Doom said:

The right choice would have been BPA.  Not by positional need.  

I hate this whole thing about BPA. It's the stupidest thing in the world because everyone's BPA is completely subjective. Most people go by "consensus" rankings but if anyone has ever followed the draft most would know that after the first few picks no team ever follows consensus to a T. If that were the case there would be no intrigue with the draft at all.

 

Further, depending on how teams prioritize their ranking, their BPA will vary widely. "Team A" may value overall point production and impact, Team B may value size, Team C may value D men, Team E may value future trade value. 

 

In the above example Team A may value small wingers highly because they may have a higher impact on the game from a offensive production. However, based on the trend in past drafts they will rarely get a D man unless they are in the top 5 of the draft. This is because D men typically take longer to develop and aren't as projectable as a forward and hence usually aren't rated as highly on media draft boards (they don't want to stick their neck out). Most people thought Moritz Seider was a reach at 6th overall when he was ranked in the mid teens. In a redraft he would most likely go second overall. As we all know unless that smallish winger turns out to be the next coming of Brad Marchand, they aren't valued all that highly from a trade perspective. Most wingers can be acquired with a mid first round pick or even second round pick +/- (Think Boeser/Garland/Mikaeyv) etc)

 

Team E on the other hand may look at the overall value of the player once they develop and how easily they can trade them as a commodity. A second pairing defenseman or even a "mediocre" first pairing young d man are impossible to trade without minimum first round pick + + +. Hence even drafting a projectable defensive d man will command a pretty hefty return. Any offensive up side on top would significantly increase to 2 first round picks at minimum. They can then trade these valuable commodities for impact winger + additional value if needed. 

 

In summary it's important for people to realize that although Benson may have been rated higher because he was more projectable, Willander may command higher premium in the end even if both hit their top potential.

[Citizen Erased]

Happy with Willander, but if Michkov or Reinbacher were available, I may have wanted them instead. 

[Phat Fingers]

Tom Willander is a no brainer.

 

Our scouts got this pick right.

 

 

[D.B Cooper]

I wanted Simashev, then Danielson. 
I was also convinced we would easily get our pick of the two. 
I actually thought we would have been able to trade down to get one.   
lol

Im dumb

[BlakeQuinnAndEggs]

I'm really happy with the pick, I'm not a scout but i don't think I've ever heard a European draft pick want to go to ncaa to get accustomed to the NA game. They usually stay in their home leagues to develop.

 

This kid oozes character. He reminds me of Ohlund.

 

But what does an optimistic fan like me know? I'm also a huge fan of our management team lol

[Hairy Kneel]

I would have selected 

Don't win 22 meaningless games. 

[MikeyD]

One thing I always find a bit odd is people who draft based on trade value. I get that defensemen and centers have more value in trades as they're harder to obtain, but don't you want your player to pan out and actually play for your team? You shouldn't want to draft a player you picked. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

I think the best defencemen were Reinbacher, Simashev, Willander and ASP and they got picked pretty fairly, think we took the right guy instead of ASP. We needed a two-way guy and we got him, we've got a Hughes, don't need another, and we're seeing with Rathbone what can happen if you're a skilled offensive guy who can't hit or play defence. Some say Simashev may be elite and that might be true, and Reinbacher had loads of hype, but Willander was the right pick for us with those guys off the board.

[HighOnHockey]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

One thing I always find a bit odd is people who draft based on trade value. I get that defensemen and centers have more value in trades as they're harder to obtain, but don't you want your player to pan out and actually play for your team? You shouldn't want to draft a player you picked. 

I have a feeling you're attacking a scarecrow here. I don't think anyone wants to draft a player just to trade them, but everyone wants to draft the most valuable player.

[Guest]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:18 AM, D.B Cooper said:

I wanted Simashev, then Danielson. 
I was also convinced we would easily get our pick of the two. 
I actually thought we would have been able to trade down to get one.   
lol

Im dumb

It just shows you that public rankings were way off on them 

[HighOnHockey]

On 7/1/2023 at 12:56 PM, TGokou said:

I hate this whole thing about BPA. It's the stupidest thing in the world because everyone's BPA is completely subjective. Most people go by "consensus" rankings but if anyone has ever followed the draft most would know that after the first few picks no team ever follows consensus to a T. If that were the case there would be no intrigue with the draft at all.

 

Further, depending on how teams prioritize their ranking, their BPA will vary widely. "Team A" may value overall point production and impact, Team B may value size, Team C may value D men, Team E may value future trade value. 

 

In the above example Team A may value small wingers highly because they may have a higher impact on the game from a offensive production. However, based on the trend in past drafts they will rarely get a D man unless they are in the top 5 of the draft. This is because D men typically take longer to develop and aren't as projectable as a forward and hence usually aren't rated as highly on media draft boards (they don't want to stick their neck out). Most people thought Moritz Seider was a reach at 6th overall when he was ranked in the mid teens. In a redraft he would most likely go second overall. As we all know unless that smallish winger turns out to be the next coming of Brad Marchand, they aren't valued all that highly from a trade perspective. Most wingers can be acquired with a mid first round pick or even second round pick +/- (Think Boeser/Garland/Mikaeyv) etc)

 

Team E on the other hand may look at the overall value of the player once they develop and how easily they can trade them as a commodity. A second pairing defenseman or even a "mediocre" first pairing young d man are impossible to trade without minimum first round pick + + +. Hence even drafting a projectable defensive d man will command a pretty hefty return. Any offensive up side on top would significantly increase to 2 first round picks at minimum. They can then trade these valuable commodities for impact winger + additional value if needed. 

 

In summary it's important for people to realize that although Benson may have been rated higher because he was more projectable, Willander may command higher premium in the end even if both hit their top potential.

Every team drafts BPA according to their own ranking. A lot of fans seem to get confused and think BPA means highest consensus ranking. Willander was not picked for positional need. He was BPA on the Canucks' list.

[Screw]

I would have taken  Benson.  Wood was a close second for me.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Screw
Spelling

[Hairy Kneel]

Contradiction:

These wins give us pride and culture. 

vs

How do we move up in the draft? What do we trade?

 

 

 

We haven't been in that position for a high pick in 25 years.

Annnd it's gone...

[Citizen Erased]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:31 AM, BlakeQuinnAndEggs said:

I'm really happy with the pick, I'm not a scout but i don't think I've ever heard a European draft pick want to go to ncaa to get accustomed to the NA game. They usually stay in their home leagues to develop.

 

This kid oozes character. He reminds me of Ohlund.

 

But what does an optimistic fan like me know? I'm also a huge fan of our management team lol

Yeah. I never thought about that, but you’re right. They usually stay in Europe to develop. I’ve never heard of one going to play in the NCAA. 

[Ted Lasso]

For 11, Willander was my choice, then Simashev, then Danielson. My reasoning was best value available, with positions absolutely factoring in.
 

I’m confident several of the forwards taken after these three will put up a lot of points, and also have great value, just less predictably.

 

Happy to see us take a couple D with our 3rds. The overages picks with our 4ths we’re disappointing, so hoping I just don’t get it yet. Happy with Celebrini, as a local pick from a seemingly great family.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Ted Lasso