2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:38 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
RoyalDude wrote: But you do agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat? Like what the Oilers did in acquiring a good young D-man in Reinhart former 4th overall draft pick? Flames did the same with getting 22 year old Hamilton, giving up their 15th overall pick and two 2nds in the process. Wasn't Hamilton a top 4 pick? The Oilers had depth in picks to make that happen and have enough good young hockey players that sacrificing a 16th overall pick and a 33rd overall pick would not hurt their youthfulness.

BPA is the only way to fly, maximum value of assets to be acquired, trade for need later
lol you say there is more than one way to skin a can, then say BPA is the only way to fly.

I agree that if if there is a clear BPA you take him. But generally after the top couple picks, BPA is more difficult to determine. At that point, say you have a dman and a forward ranked similarly, we should lean towards the d-man. And yeah, the trade route would work, but both your examples involve stockpiling draft picks, which Benning hasn't done. When we acquire draft picks, they are usually out the door fast.

And Hamilton was 9th overall.
Sorry I should have expanded on that, the Avalanche who have accumulated a lot of good young forwards through drafting but needed defence traded O'Reilly in a package for top defensive prospect Zadorov and other parts. The two main players in that trade were O'Reilly and Zadorov. Zadorov is a very good D-man and he was made available by Buffalo as the Sabres have good depth in young D-men with young stud Ritsolainen at the top of that list.

More than one way to skin a cat in that drafting isn't the only way to acquire good young defencemen. BPA always when drafting
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5027
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Reefer2 » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:10 pm

What the hell is BPA?

on what list do we consider a GM not getting the BPA? TSN or NHL scouting reports?

After top 5 anything goes, dropping down 5 picks is not a big deal once you past top 10. If we draft 15th you can easily pick any position you want unless you really go off the board. It means nothing until you start to develop the player in your system.

Every freaking GM looks for the same thing, character, skill, leadership etc. Every team has scouting that looks into this and every team will pick who THEY think best meets what they are looking for. Benning does not different than 29 other GM.

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Sun Aug 23, 2015 12:44 pm

Reefer2 wrote:What the hell is BPA?

on what list do we consider a GM not getting the BPA? TSN or NHL scouting reports?

After top 5 anything goes, dropping down 5 picks is not a big deal once you past top 10. If we draft 15th you can easily pick any position you want unless you really go off the board. It means nothing until you start to develop the player in your system.

Every freaking GM looks for the same thing, character, skill, leadership etc. Every team has scouting that looks into this and every team will pick who THEY think best meets what they are looking for. Benning does not different than 29 other GM.
WTF are u going on about? Where did I say Benning was different from any other GM. They all follow the same Best Player Available theory from THEIR OWN LiST. If the Stars followed TSN and any other lame as media's rankings they wouldn't have drafted Guyranov where they did and Boston wouldn't have drafted Debrusk and Senyshyn where they did. Sort of like how Boeser was still available when the Nucks were picking as they thought he would not be available since they had him ranked much higher on THEIR OWN RANKED LIST

So even though we saw 3 teams in our own conference trade for need on defence at this years draft by trading from asset depth in Colorado, Edmonton and Colorado you still think that that is not feasible for us?

The Canucks have depth at young centre's in Horvat, Sutter, McCann, Cassels, Vey and Gaunce, you dont think we could acquire a young D-prospect from a team needing depth at centre? Come draft 2016 what if the best player available at the time of our pick is a centre do you not think that that might be a good time to make a trade using one of our centre's to shore up some need on defense hence Colorado, Edmonton and Calgary? All teams still refer to their own ranked list throughout the entire draft. You don't honestly think they only rank the top 30-60 players do you? LOL

Trade for need. Draft the Best Player Available
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:06 pm

RoyalDude wrote: So even though we saw 3 teams in our own conference trade for need on defence at this years draft by trading from asset depth in Colorado, Edmonton and Colorado you still think that that is not feasible for us?
Of course it's feasible for us. But the best scenario is you draft and develop your own players across all positions. You aren't going to get other teams' best prospects, unless your trading your own best prospects (unless you think Vey is going to get you anything substantial...). Just because Calgary swindled Sweeney at the draft doesn't mean we should expect to be able to do it.

Instead of putting yourself in a position where you have to trade multiple assets for a need, maybe try to pre-empt that need by drafting a balanced prospect pool.
Trade for need. Draft the Best Player Available
I think you just kind of explained how drafting "your" BPA doesn't necessarily mean you're getting the BPA. Like you said, every GM has their own list, TSN has their own list, Central Scouting has their list etc. etc. When you're talking about someone who is a consensus pick in a certain range, unless you're going right off the board, you can pretty much argue you are drafting the BPA.

Nobody is saying we should be drafting a d-man instead of Matthews, or if the top-15 prospects are all forwards and we're picking 3rd that we should just go after the best d-man. What we're saying is that if you have a group of prospects in a given range you certainly can lean towards a certain position. I don't think anyone would bat an eye, or say you drafted for position instead of "BPA", if you took Provorov instead of Zacha, or Rantanen before Werenski.

Benning would just step up to the TSN table and say "well, you know, we had him ranked much higher on our list, and we're surprised someone with the, you know, the intangibles he has fell to us."

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5027
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Reefer2 » Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:17 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Reefer2 wrote:What the hell is BPA?

on what list do we consider a GM not getting the BPA? TSN or NHL scouting reports?

After top 5 anything goes, dropping down 5 picks is not a big deal once you past top 10. If we draft 15th you can easily pick any position you want unless you really go off the board. It means nothing until you start to develop the player in your system.

Every freaking GM looks for the same thing, character, skill, leadership etc. Every team has scouting that looks into this and every team will pick who THEY think best meets what they are looking for. Benning does not different than 29 other GM.
WTF are u going on about? Where did I say Benning was different from any other GM. They all follow the same Best Player Available theory from THEIR OWN LiST. If the Stars followed TSN and any other lame as media's rankings they wouldn't have drafted Guyranov where they did and Boston wouldn't have drafted Debrusk and Senyshyn where they did. Sort of like how Boeser was still available when the Nucks were picking as they thought he would not be available since they had him ranked much higher on THEIR OWN RANKED LIST

Trade for need. Draft the Best Player Available
Yo RD - my comments were not addressed to you or anyone else.

BPA is what ever the GM thinks it is and positional requirements does have some impact on who they draft.

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:04 pm

In the first two rounds of each of the 6 NHL drafts the Mike Gillis regime managed for your Vancouver Canucks he drafted one defenceman - Yann Sauve. LOL. But our lack of defence prospects is all Bennings fault. Gold Jerry
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:14 am

RoyalDude wrote:In the first two rounds of each of the 6 NHL drafts the Mike Gillis regime managed for your Vancouver Canucks he drafted one defenceman - Yann Sauve. LOL. But our lack of defence prospects is all Bennings fault. Gold Jerry
Once again, RD finds himself arguing with the voices in his head.

Nobody is saying Benning has done a poor job drafting. However, our prospect pool, while improving, is still shallow. Especially on the back-end.

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:55 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:However, our prospect pool, while improving, is still shallow. Especially on the back-end.
Tell me that again. I want to hear it again. Make it your mantra.

My Mantra - Draft Best Player Available. Trade for need later, like what the Oilers, Flames and Avalanche did at the 2015 draft
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:29 am

RoyalDude wrote: My Mantra - Draft Best Player Available. Trade for need later, like what the Oilers, Flames and Avalanche did at the 2015 draft
I have to admit, that is a much better mantra than the "Gills! Gillis!!!" and "Booth and Ballard!!!!" vomit you typically fire-hose these boards with.

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:47 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
RoyalDude wrote: My Mantra - Draft Best Player Available. Trade for need later, like what the Oilers, Flames and Avalanche did at the 2015 draft
I have to admit, that is a much better mantra than the "Gills! Gillis!!!" and "Booth and Ballard!!!!" vomit you typically fire-hose these boards with.
It's not my fault your boi Gillis laid a massive rotten egg at the helm of your Vancouver Canucks. I'm here to make you never forget the Gillis shit show
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:50 am

OK enough of the Blob-IN crew highjackin' this wonderful thread and dragging it down to sub zero negative levels, time to re-focus. Both parties have valid points, let's use the 2013 draft as an example of where both sides of this argument are validated.

So after drafting Bo Horvat and proceeding to our next pick where we took the runt Hunter ShrunkCarrot, knowing how decimated our prospect Defence pool is after drafting in the first two rounds of the previous 5 drafts only one defenceman in Yann Sauve, a second rounder. Mike Gillis decides to take another forward in ShrunkCarrot. Even though! Even though there was a solid D prospect still available in Shea Theodore still on board who went two picks later to Anaheim. Hindsight - Gillis should have drafted by need, but Gillis loves drafting forwards.

Now move on to our next pick in the 3rd round (Canucks had no 2nd round pick, Gillis did something to it). Knowing full well how decimated our prospect pool is on D and having just taken 2 forwards in the same draft who does Gillis draft? A FORWARD in Cole Cassels. So it's obvious here even to the laymens that Mike "Yann. Sauve" Gillis stuck with the Best Player Available theory as the next 3 D-men chosen after Cassels are looking like Shite nobody's.

So above is a perfect example of where the argument of drafting by need wins - ShrunkCarrot vs BC kid - Shea Theodore world class gold medal winning WJC'er and also where drafting the best player available wins in Cole Cassels
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:41 am

Gillis was only picking BPA with the Shinkaruk pick. Central Scouting had him as the 6th best NA forward in the draft, right behind Monahan and ahead of guys like Mantha. So Gillis was only doing exactly what you're advocating... conversely Horvat was not projected to go top-10, so one could make the suggestion that Gillis was drafting for a perceived need at 9 (Horvat was the next-best C after Monohan), or working off his own list, instead of just taking the consensus BPA (likely Nichushkin).

I guess it just goes to show that with so many opinions on who the BPA is, the whole policy becomes really difficult to debate when you are looking at a draft window of 5-8 spots, as you'll probably get 4 or 5 differing opinions on who the BPA is.

What's the word on Sean Day, Dude? 6'2, 220, 17-year old D-man playing for Mississauga. Granted exceptional status (like Tavares, Ekblad and McDavid)... where's he supposed to go?

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:28 pm

That's what I'm saying IN, Gillis went with the BPA on your boi Shinky, even ignoring the massive warning signs of why said player was falling like a rock in the rankings like no other. That time he should have chose to draft by need i.e.- Theodore, especially considering only drafting one defenceman - Sauve,'in the top two rounds of his 5 previous drafts as your Canuck GM. I agree about drafting by need sometimes. The BPA theory did work with the Cassels pick as it was quite obvious that we did not need another young centre at the time when we just drafted Horvat and already had Schroeder and Gaunce in the system
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:58 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote: What's the word on Sean Day, Dude? 6'2, 220, 17-year old D-man playing for Mississauga. Granted exceptional status (like Tavares, Ekblad and McDavid)... where's he supposed to go?
Eliteprospects has him listed at 247 pounds. Holy Nick Ritchie.

User avatar
Chef Boi RD
CC Legend
Posts: 15486
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: 2016 NHL ENTRY DRAFT

Post by Chef Boi RD » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:02 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Island Nucklehead wrote: What's the word on Sean Day, Dude? 6'2, 220, 17-year old D-man playing for Mississauga. Granted exceptional status (like Tavares, Ekblad and McDavid)... where's he supposed to go?
Eliteprospects has him listed at 247 pounds. Holy Nick Ritchie.
The dude is falling faster than the Dow Jones was yesterday. Shouldn't have been granted exceptional status as it looks now. Apparently not the greatest IQ.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Post Reply