Vancouver Canucks Messageboard

micky107 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:49 am

Diehard1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:35 pm
As for trading the pick - I don’t see Jimbo moving up, it’s just too expensive. I could see him trading a couple of Tanev, Hutton, Sutter, etc for some 2nds, 3rds or 4ths, but unless Jimbo wants to trade Tanev for a 2nd and then flip both is 2nds for a late 1st I doubt much will happen at the top end of the draft.
We will get a very good player - stay the course, keep drafting, and hopefully trade some of the dead wood for extra picks.

Good sense wins the day!! Trying to trade up would absolutely be expensive. Why? Because it would involve one of Bo, Brock or Pete.
LMFAO, I don't think so.
You see young Jack last nite? He's a 17 year old kid. "HOWEVER"; and by no means trying to be an ass or someone with a dislike agenda,
WOULD anyone think it prudent to speakith to New Jersey at a later time?

Quinn for Nico Hischier and your 2020 1st. I don't even know if I would, but do you explore stuff like this?

They are young kids - Jack coming into the league next year may have a few issues. He's 17 and will barely be 18 when he makes it, while Quinn will be 20 right around the time the season starts next year. That almost 2 years is a big difference. Kakko is probably more NHL ready but he might be the only one who truly is.

I wouldn't trade much for Nico, and definitely not Quinn given how much we need D. If they wanted to do Ty Smith and Nico for Quinn then I'm listening but I'd still probably squeeze them for more as I'm not sure it's worth it. I think Quinn will be a #1/#2 dman as soon as next year and that's worth a ton on an entry level deal.

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:05 am

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:36 am

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:17 am

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:56 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:34 pm I definitely think they need to change the draft lottery. Said it for years.

I like some of Burke's thoughts on it.

If you win the lottery you can't pick 1st overall again for 3-5 years.

You also can't pick in the top-3 the following season.

Only the bottom 10 teams should have a shot at the top-3.

I like the idea of a completely different seeding. Take all the teams that miss the playoffs. Rank them from best to worst winning percentage from the TDD to the end of the season. The team with the best winning percentage drafts first and so on. This completely takes away any notion of tanking. In fact it gives teams a huge incentive to win. It rewards GMs who make astute moves to keep their team competitive during the rebuild years. It takes 100% of the randomness out of it.

Handle rounds 2-7 the way you do now. But they have to fix the system. I don't know how it would have worked out for us over the last 4-5 years as I haven't done the math so this idea, which is not original to me, isn't based upon bias. It simply rewards teams that always try to ice the best line up and always try to be competitive and win. And I hate the randomness of the lottery. It still rewards incompetence and tanking.

The only problem I see with your idea there Wids is that it would absolutely punish a team like the we were this year.....decimated by injuries which probably tanked our winning percentage a fair amount. If they could somehow factor in an algorithm that could account for man-games lost to injury or something that tempered things.....i dunno.

... it wouldn't have made a lick of difference this year. We would have drafted about 10th...

We'd be around 8th.

Top 5 would be some mix of Florida/Arizona/Anaheim/Montreal/Edmonton.

No, I don't think this works either. As mentioned, take Montreal who only missed the playoffs by a shootout win by Columbus. They should be up near the top of the post TDD race because they aren't a bad team. Do they deserve, or need, the 1OA? Or imagine a scenario where you are improving, but you happen to be in a very strong division where 4-5 teams are fighting for their playoff lives. In that case you'll probably have a fairly mediocre record down the stretch, especially compared to a similar team in a bad division. Or perhaps you're decimated by injuries?

With the current system, luck is luck and you may get gifted OR screwed. Is the current system successful? Chicago, within a few years of a Cup, 'suffers' through maybe 1.5 years of mediocre and gets a #3? New Jersey has two #1s in three years, with a decent playoff appearance in the middle year. Yet a team could finish in the bottom ten for 20 years and never get a top-3 pick. This doesn't make much sense. While the league has addressed deliberate tanking, it also opened up the possibility to make things worse for the teams that actually need a high pick.

The system needs to correct for both too many lottery wins AND too few. Maybe the percentage chance should be additive, and the previous year's top-3 winners are reset and/or excluded. Clearly this would be considered the "Vancouver clause", but it might make some sense. No team is going to tank through multiple full seasons and the idea that if you're not crawling out of the basement after several years you'll get a top-3 might be reasonable.

Puck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:28 am The system needs to correct for both too many lottery wins AND too few. Maybe the percentage chance should be additive, and the previous year's top-3 winners are reset and/or excluded. Clearly this would be considered the "Vancouver clause", but it might make some sense. No team is going to tank through multiple full seasons and the idea that if you're not crawling out of the basement after several years you'll get a top-3 might be reasonable.

The Arizona clause...

It doesn't seem fair that a truly awful team like Arizona has never picked first overall, while the Oilers get 4 in 6 years (and a 3rd overall to boot).

Such a rule may also make rebuilding teams more willing to trade their 1st round draft picks for immediate help if they knew they couldn't land another high-end pick thanks to this rule.

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:38 am

Puck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:28 am The system needs to correct for both too many lottery wins AND too few. Maybe the percentage chance should be additive, and the previous year's top-3 winners are reset and/or excluded. Clearly this would be considered the "Vancouver clause", but it might make some sense. No team is going to tank through multiple full seasons and the idea that if you're not crawling out of the basement after several years you'll get a top-3 might be reasonable.

The Arizona clause...

It doesn't seem fair that a truly awful team like Arizona has never picked first overall, while the Oilers get 4 in 6 years (and a 3rd overall to boot).

Such a rule may also make rebuilding teams more willing to trade their 1st round draft picks for immediate help if they knew they couldn't land another high-end pick thanks to this rule.

Yeah, I like Puck's idea. Not sure of the exact mechanics, but would be nice to see lotto winners excluded for a period (3-5 years) and lotto losers have increased odds if they stay near the bottom for multiple years (i.e. the additive % Puck referenced).

From an objective standpoint (as opposed to my current loss-induced rage) I think a system like that would be more effective at creating the parity the league so desperately desires without overly rewarding basement dwellers or perpetual tankers.


A counter idea would be to instate the exclusion period for lotto winning teams but give the same odds to every team who doesn't make the playoffs. It would be more fair (and probably substantially increase fan excitement respecting the lotto) but wouldn't do as much to further the parity agenda.

Here is today's article by "Carol Schram" which includes one take on how the LEAK happened; Quite funny.
https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Carol-S ... /194/98865

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:03 am My prediction - drafting 10th overall

Good call ! Now who do we get at 10 ?

Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:03 am My prediction - drafting 10th overall

Good call ! Now who do we get at 10 ?

Soderstrom

Just one number away?
https://twitter.com/samir_javer/status/ ... 1962900481

I have no idea! A jinx is a jinx is a************************************************w/e

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:08 pm

Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:03 am My prediction - drafting 10th overall

Good call ! Now who do we get at 10 ?

Soderstrom

in depth. https://dobberprospects.com/player/victor-soderstrom/

micky107 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:08 pm

Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:03 am My prediction - drafting 10th overall

Good call ! Now who do we get at 10 ?

Soderstrom

in depth. https://dobberprospects.com/player/victor-soderstrom/

February 2019 – Söderström has been spending most of this season at the top level in Sweden in the SHL, and he’s been given a good role where he gets to play good minutes and also sees time on the power play. Söderström may actually be the second-best defenseman in his draft class. He’s a strong puck-mover who likes to join the rush but he’s also a very strong player defensively. His hockey sense is very high and he uses it at both ends of the rink.

He’s a very smooth and talented skater who is capable of playing big minutes. He also has a good shot, and he’s able to get it through traffic pretty frequently. It’s also a good thing for NHL teams that he shoots from the right side.

At 5-foot-11, Söderström isn’t big but he likes to throw his weight around. It’s pretty easy to project him as a middle-pair defenseman but he has upside to become a number two if everything goes well.
-Jokke Nevalainen

Right shot, projected 2nd best dman avail this draft, he's going top 9 imo.

Puck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:28 am [
No, I don't think this works either. As mentioned, take Montreal who only missed the playoffs by a shootout win by Columbus. They should be up near the top of the post TDD race because they aren't a bad team. Do they deserve, or need, the 1OA?

Well, every team needs the first overall.

A team like Montreal deserves the 1st overall far, far more than Edmonton. Maybe not more than the Avs, who made a wicked trade to be in that position, but I'd say Montreal deserves it more than New Jersey deserves back to back 1Las.

Rocky Dennis wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:08 am

Carlyee wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:55 am

Diehard1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:42 am

Rocky Dennis wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:33 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:34 pm I wouldn’t trade Bo alone for the pick

+1
Although I admit not knowing much about the draft prospects. I'm just totally averse to parting with Bo anytime soon.

Ya I don't think I trade Bo for any of the picks this year, especially since I assume we'd have to include the 10th overall as well. 10th + Bo is worth more than Jack Hughes, IMHO.

Next year is a better draft so perhaps it would change then, but for this year I hope Jimbo just keeps his pick and drafts either a top 6 forward (lots of choices) or a top 4 D (Soderstrom should be available).

Keep Bo Trade Brock.

This I'm still not opposed to even though, like HW, I was really pleased to see how he finished the season. Especially in contrast to a lot of the lacklustre play (effort?) we saw at points during the season. That all being said, I still don't do 10OA plus Brock for 1OA. Does anyone make that deal straight up? Don't think Jersey does. If I'm trading Brock, it's for a young, high end d-man.

He floated when it was important to win games and hustled when they were fubar. He has a contract to sign and this league is definitely "what have you done for me lately?"

His "effort" at the end of a non-playoff season does not impress me.

Trade him to the east coast and probably add 0 years to the rebuild.

I think youre wrong carlyee. I think he was only at the last half of the year recovering from that clutterfuck injury

Hes not a floater imo

Uncle dans leg wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:59 am I think youre wrong carlyee. I think he was only at the last half of the year recovering from that clutterfuck injury

Hes not a floater imo

Agreed.

SKYO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:48 pm

micky107 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:08 pm

Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:19 pm

RoyalDude wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:03 am My prediction - drafting 10th overall

Good call ! Now who do we get at 10 ?

Soderstrom

in depth. https://dobberprospects.com/player/victor-soderstrom/

February 2019 – Söderström has been spending most of this season at the top level in Sweden in the SHL, and he’s been given a good role where he gets to play good minutes and also sees time on the power play. Söderström may actually be the second-best defenseman in his draft class. He’s a strong puck-mover who likes to join the rush but he’s also a very strong player defensively. His hockey sense is very high and he uses it at both ends of the rink.

He’s a very smooth and talented skater who is capable of playing big minutes. He also has a good shot, and he’s able to get it through traffic pretty frequently. It’s also a good thing for NHL teams that he shoots from the right side.

At 5-foot-11, Söderström isn’t big but he likes to throw his weight around. It’s pretty easy to project him as a middle-pair defenseman but he has upside to become a number two if everything goes well.
-Jokke Nevalainen

Right shot, projected 2nd best dman avail this draft, he's going top 9 imo.

He’s playing with men in the Swedish Elite League and not looking out of place, is playing really good hockey in the SEL. Soderstrom also plays with an edge, loves to hit, he’s far from soft. Could step in the NHL next season.

I get the sense that he will go higher than expected.