UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 9:53 am I think that one of the issues with BPA as a concept is that that the "best" part can be analyzed on a few dimensions. Who is the best player at this moment, which player has the best "expected value" (which considers all possible projected outcomes and the likelihood each will occur), and which player has the highest best reasonable case outcome. The first is attractive to those who think projections are pretty much a crapshoot so go with what can be observed today. But if you believe that there's more than randomness in projecting players to their maturity, the second and third approaches each make sense in different context. The second is, to me, analogous to sort of the question you ask when you are setting your lineups. The third is more analogous to the question you have when it comes to what players are you putting out on the ice when you are down by a goal.
Great post UW.
I think that if you are picking in the top-5 (if not top-10) the BPA approach should be a combination approach. Basically look at which of the best players "right now"has the highest ceiling and go for them. Anyone with a higher ceiling than them who has not worked their way into that top-10 is not worth reaching for at that point in the draft barring some very incredible certainty with consensus that goes beyond the organization.
Once you're into the rest of the 1st round I think you can weigh ceiling a little higher than the "right now", but ultimately in the first round you should be looking at the combination with more weight on the right now than a possible ceiling.
Ceiling can also have more weight for teams that are where the Canucks are right now. You're planning for 4+ years down the road, so taking an 18 year old kid that would be a bottom-6/bottom-pair skater (between now and 3 years from now) but has a decently projected ceiling of top-6/top-4 when he's 23 years old, that makes sense.
That definitely makes me think of the 2008 - 2012 Canucks.My personal philosophy of team building is that every Stanley Cup competitive team needs a core of 6-7 players comprised of an inner core of 3-6 players and an outer core of 1-3 players and that everyone else is there only to complement those core guys. Inner core are those who you build around; outer core are those who might yet become part of that inner core or have become synonymous with the team -- consider a team captain who is not a star but who is axiomatic of the kind of player that represents the organization, an alternate captain whose play style best exemplifies the style of the team, a former inner core member whose played their career for the team and who is a fan favorite. Everyone else is a complement to that core or possibly a prospect/young player that has core potential and is thus not quite as fungible as other complements because teams need to be cognizant of the value of succession planning vs. building the best complementary group for that next season.
In 2008 the core was clearly Henrik, Daniel, and Luongo.
Kesler, Salo, Ohlund, Edler, Bieksa, and Mitchell, were the outer core.....Kesler, Bieksa, and Edler, were actively playing their way into that inner core, while Mutt and Willie were exiting stage left.
It was Burrows' breakout season, and Raymond and Hansen were showing flashes of productive NHL regulars.
By the end of the following season we saw exactly what you described.....but that team had a deeper core. It can be argued that the inner core was the Sedins and Lou alone, but the knit was so tight in that room that Kesler, Juice, Burrows, Edler, and Salo, were all part of that mix, and even removing one of those guys would have had pretty serious ripple effects during that era of the team.
Moving ahead to now.....
I agree with what you said (clipped for Donny's sake) regarding the team not having any players who project with certainty be part of that core in 3+ years.
I'd say, that on our entire roster, Buium is the only guy that has a shot of being in that inner core group.
Your takes on Willander and Ohgren are good too. I do think both of them have a better chance than you give them at being outer core players.
I also think that, for the flack he gets from some, Boeser could be that guy who is the long-standing veteran. His skating has always been his Achilles heel, but particularly noticed since his sophomore season, but I haven't seen it falling off at all. He could easily become our Toffoli.....that savvy vet who plays all situations, scores 20+ goals, can be moved up and down the top-3 lines, and never really shows us a drop off in speed because he was never a burner who relied on foot speed in the first place. He's like the new Linden.
On this year's draft.....
I agree with your take on McKenna and Stenberg. They are a cut above at this point.
My opinion on European players is well known, and I factor that into anything I read about that player's projected ceiling unless they have played all of their junior in the CHL or gone the route of NCAA. Different rinks, different refs, different mindset surrounding the game. They can adjust, and you have to give it time, but too often I think the adjustment comes at the cost of them developing into a different player than what the team was hoping for when they selected them.
For the sake of other derailing in response to my own bias, I'll say this: If neither of those guys are available to us at 3, I'm very much in favour of trading down.....especially if it includes a 1st rounder from next year's draft. My rationale for this goes to what you mention about this year's draft being deeper in terms of higher floors. We aren't likely going to get anyone, outside of those top-2 guys, who burst through the ceiling, but there's a very good chance we grab players who are in that outer core category 4 years from now.
If you can package the 3 O/A with something that returns a top-20 pick this year AND a 1st rounder next year that could somewhat reasonably land in the top-20 (if not low lottery odds), I think you role that dice based on the projection of the 2027 draft class.
" 
