Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 11:32 am
UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 am
And at the end of the day, this organization needs at least one (probably more) exceptional players. It wouldn't bother me at all if the Canucks approach to drafting (hopefully) 3 first rounders next summer is ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling.
Am I reading your intent correctly in that when you say "ceiling, ceiling, and ceiling", you are meaning BPA, BPA, and BPA?
Had to disappear from this (good) discussion....
Ronning's Ghost's posts express exactly what I meant by ceiling v. BPA (or anything else). I'll add a couple more observations to this:
(1) The earlier you are in the draft, the more likely BPA and ceiling will merge. Because the top players in most drafts not only have terrific upside, but they are very likely to make a good contribution.
(2) As you descend the draft, you are getting players who have more holes in their game -- some of those holes are the type that if not fixed they won't be NHLers, but if they are fixed than their other attributes could make them very special. Others have holes that you don't see as likely impediments to an NHL career, but they lack (and are not terribly likely to develop) the top end attributes to make them special. These are the guys with a higher floor, because they've got the legs, they've got "compete", they've got the discipline, they've got the size, they've got the hockey IQ, they've always played well against the hardest (or older) competition.
(3) Another way to articulate what I mean by ceiling, is that the question is "what player is most likely to become a CORE player in my franchise." BPA might think "what player is most likely to be above marginal and contribute at the NHL level, top 9, top 5D. There's stuff in between of course, and projection is not a science, but there is a slight difference. And its absolutely valid that the question being asked at the draft table changes from year to year based on what's in the pipeline, and it also is something that might change pick to pick (just as position consideration becomes more valid as the draft continues. While we might disagree on this to some degree (I definitely lean player over position), you have to avoid extreme imbalance -- e.g., you really don't want to go 4 drafts (or even three) without a goalie. My suggestion is that the Canucks should go ceiling on all of their 1sts (hopefully 3) next year.
Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 19, 2025 2:06 am
In 2014 we wasted a 6th overall pick thinking a big heavy
local kid was a good idea.
In 2016 we wasted a 5th overall pick thinking we needed to go for a d-man over a heavy skilled guy because we already got one of those in 2014.
In 2018 we scored a generational player with a 7th overall pick because we kept it simple and took the bpa that landed at our feet.
On Virtanen, I am not sure how much the local thing played into it, but isn't it interesting that there are posters here complaining about retaining players in Canada who would probably also say this wasn't a valid thing for them to consider. My guess is that Canucks staff saw Virtanen as the ceiling player at that point -- and that's a painful remainder to what I am advocating here.
It will not always work out.
On Juolevi, it seems the pick was both positionally driven and lowest perceived floor. That's why not McAvoy, not Sergeychev. Now, the scouts were wrong about Juolevi's floor, seemingly collectively, though injuries may have played a role. This only goes to show that no matter the question you are asking (ceiling, BPA, safest), scouting and projection is inexact.
I recall a pretty split opinion among the blabbering heads on Tkachuk, but I think he was seen as highest potential upside at the time Juolevi was picked. But I could also see Tkachuk as being seen as having a fairly high floor (with some questions about personality). But maybe the better example of the ceiling pick in that draft was Keller, who there was a lot of doubt about his floor and wasn't expected to go at 7. Definitely a player who was viewed than if he can get through the cracks that are large enough to keep him out of the league, he could be a core player for a franchise, but there's a potential for a bust. And I think he became that core player for Utah; and Alex Nylander, selected next for upside, became the bust.
On Hughes, I definitely think that he was both BPA and ceiling when drafted. The thing that kept him from being drafted earlier was size -- to be sure there was also a (related) concern that would he only be an offensive defenseman. This is why you shouldn't get path dependent about size. Its a factor into figuring out whether a guy is the BPA, but drawing bright lines is just stupid. All bright lines do is blind. Lesson is yes, get out of the way, but more than that, do not impose inflexible criteria. At some point in a draft, the shorter guy is the BPA/ceiling; the potential bad attitude is the BPA/ceiling; the guy with a skating issue is the BPA/ceiling.
