Toggle sidebar

2016 Draft Thread | 7

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
fancouver said:
Nobody is saying he sucks, and some don't mind him at 6th.

But what you described is a guy who could be elsewhere outside the top 10. And for the Canucks, that's not something they should do. You're describing Hamhuis really. And all Canuck fans love him, but at 6th, we want something like Shea Weber if it's a defenceman and this year, there isn't a Weber-projected defenceman.
Click to expand...

Hamhuis ?Hamhuis could never QB a Power play like Juolevi could.

We're talking about a ceiling of 20 MIN A night - 55+ pts. A year.
 
If they've picked out Juolevi as their guy then it's for a specific reason. It's not only Benning but I'm guessing most of the scouts.
 
PrinceOfPucks said:
Hamhuis ?Hamhuis could never QB a Power play like Juolevi could.

We're talking about a ceiling of 20 MIN A night - 55+ pts. A year.
Click to expand...

55+ points?! That's a bit much don't you think?

So you think he'll be better than Ryan Suter, Victor Hedman, Brent Seabrook, Keith Yandle, Kevin Shattenkirk, Dougie Hamilton.....

I really don't think so, otherwise, he'd be a lock in the top 5.
 
MS said:
Teams don't give away information like this and there's a reason they don't.

He's continually trying to play poker while holding his cards backwards for everyone to see.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He is unbelievably in way over his head. His buffoonery is legendary. I pray we luck out with a top 3 pick so we can be saved from his dimwittedness.
 
MikeK said:
Agreed. He is unbelievably in way over his head. His buffoonery is legendary. I pray we luck out with a top 3 pick so we can be saved from his dimwittedness.
Click to expand...

Top 4 seems safe that he will pick the consensus BPA. Once we get into 5-6 territory, he'll just end up with tunnel vision and go with the target regardless of what anyone else says.
 
thecupismine said:
Yup, its just mind-numbing how dumb he is with the media. He doesn't seem to realize that information asymmetry can be used to your advantage in negotiations, which is just unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It's going back a bit, but as an example :

In 1998, the consensus 1-2 in the draft were Lecavalier and David Legwand. San Jose was picking 2nd and Nashville was picking 3rd. But San Jose had Brad Stuart at #2 and were taking him at #2 no matter what. But they managed to get Nashville to give them the #29 overall pick in exchange for dropping down to #3, and took the player they wanted anyway. And got Cheechoo with the 2nd, who would score 56 goals one year for them.

If Dean Lombardi goes into that draft saying 'Derp, we really like the defenseman at #2!' there's no way he's able to swing that deal and get the extra pick.

This *probably* won't hurt them. But it might, and there is simply ZERO reason to not play your cards as close to the vest as possible. And this isn't the first time this has happened - every time he trades a player, he seems to go into the media and claim there's no market for him beforehand, or announce exactly what he wants in the case of Lack. It's mind-numbingly stupid. He just doesn't seem to understand at all.
 
duplo said:
Hey guys,

I know how much you LOVE unsolicited rumours, but everything Benning said in that interview reaffirmed what my friend told me. Take it or leave it, but my friend is a reputable source who works in the industry. If you look at my post history, I've never put anything out there like this and I generally try to avoid attention.

Here's the deets I was given yesterday:

- Benning and the gang are all about drafting a centre or a d-man. They don't care about wingers at all.

- That being said, the big three is the big three. They won't hesitate to draft any of those three if they're lucky enough to. Here's the thing though. There's an outside chance they'd take Puljujärvi over Laine, but it's doubtful. The reason is they could try and convert Pulju as a centre.

- It's the same reason they definitively like Dubois at the 4 spot. They'd want to develop him as a centre.

- What's SUPER NOT COOL is that after that, they're all about a d-man. Juolevi is their guy right now, followed by Sergachev. He said he's 90% sure they'd take Juolevi at 6, with a strong chance of reaching even further and taking him if they draft at 5. I hope he's wrong, but as of now they're saying that's where they're leaning.
Click to expand...


That's two 'sources' confirming Juolevi as the top Dman. Disagree, but such is life.

Trying PLD at C is smart. Luckily, they are progressive enough to do it. I don't think think he'll settle there, but it doesn't hurt to try it. Same with Pulju. They might as well give his skill set a run in the middle of the ice. Couldn't hurt.

Now pick #5 becomes a big question mark. If they avoid wingers and PLD is taken before their pick, then it's Tkachuk vs. Juolevi. Do they bite the bullet and take the productive winger? Or, do they stick to the plan and take OJ? Controversial position given their mindset.
 
Bleach Clean said:
That's two 'sources' confirming Juolevi as the top Dman. Disagree, but such is life.

Trying PLD at C is smart. Luckily, they are progressive enough to do it. I don't think think he'll settle there, but it doesn't hurt to try it. Same with Pulju. They might as well give his skill set a run in the middle of the ice. Couldn't hurt.

Now pick #5 becomes a big question mark. If they avoid wingers and PLD is taken before their pick, then it's Tkachuk vs. Juolevi. Do they bite the bullet and take the productive winger? Or, do they stick to the plan and take OJ? Controversial position given their mindset.
Click to expand...

It really depends if you think Marner/Dvorak were the main drivers on that line. If you do, then it's an easy decision to not pick him.

But what if you're wrong? What if he really is a 2.0ppg player and offense was generated by him?
 
I think we have a very good chance to get Dubois even at 5 considering Edmonton will most likely be picking 4 if we are picking at 5. Good chance that Edmonton takes Juolevi or Chychurn.
 
fancouver said:
It really depends if you think Marner/Dvorak were the main drivers on that line. If you do, then it's an easy decision to not pick him.

But what if you're wrong? What if he really is a 2.0ppg player and offense was generated by him?
Click to expand...


I think it's logical to ascertain that some of his total was inflated, but how much is the question? It can't be dismissed altogether. And they're still comparing this unknown vs. trying to project Juolevi (also not an easy task).

If close, I'd go with the forward.


Bad News Benning said:
I think we have a very good chance to get Dubois even at 5 considering Edmonton will most likely be picking 4 if we are picking at 5. Good chance that Edmonton takes Juolevi or Chychurn.
Click to expand...


This was my earlier thought as well. At #4, EDM will very likely take a Dman. However, if they pick higher, they may just take Puljujarvi and trade for need. If the Canucks finish #5, EDM has to be at #4 to allow for PLD be available for the Canucks pick.
 
Bad News Benning said:
I think we have a very good chance to get Dubois even at 5 considering Edmonton will most likely be picking 4 if we are picking at 5. Good chance that Edmonton takes Juolevi or Chychurn.
Click to expand...

They, Edmonton, should trade down is that it's their plan. Get the same player and mid-30s pick.
 
Bleach Clean said:
I think it's logical to ascertain that some of his total was inflated, but how much is the question? It can't be dismissed altogether. And they're still comparing this unknown vs. trying to project Juolevi (also not an easy task).

If close, I'd go with the forward.
Click to expand...

This is the thing I keep arguing against as well. If we assume there is some 'extra inflation' inherent in Tkachuk's point totals - not a slam dunk assumption (see my scepticism of Ehlers playing PP with Drouin in 2014) but not an unreasonable one either - the problem is people tend to leave it fairly 'open ended', meaning they dismiss ALL of his production rather than quantify it in some way.

I mean most elite juniors play with their team's other best players. Dubois doesn't play with scrubs, neither does Nylander or McLeod. Tkachuk, if he didn't play with perhaps the OHl's best player (Marner) would still being playing with a very good player on most other teams. So the inflation isn't infinite.

Is it 10 'extra' points? Still leaves him at 97 and the best PPG amongst CHL eligibles.

Is it 20 extra? Still at 87 in 57 which is close to Bennett in his draft year.

Is it 30 extra? Now he's at 77 in 57 or Alex Nylander's production.


Unless people envision that Tkachuk picked up 35+ points simply by touching the puck and getting off the ice, then I don't see how these inflation concerns result in him still not being the best forward option outside of the big 3 and Dubois. TBH if he had 107 pts WITHOUT playing with Marner he would be a slam dunk to go #4 over any other player in the draft.

It should be factored in but it isn't everything when evaluating Tkachuk.
 
CanaFan said:
This is the thing I keep arguing against as well. If we assume there is some 'extra inflation' inherent in Tkachuk's point totals - not a slam dunk assumption (see my scepticism of Ehlers playing PP with Drouin in 2014) but not an unreasonable one either - the problem is people tend to leave it fairly 'open ended', meaning they dismiss ALL of his production rather than quantify it in some way.

I mean most elite juniors play with their team's other best players. Dubois doesn't play with scrubs, neither does Nylander or McLeod. Tkachuk, if he didn't play with perhaps the OHl's best player (Marner) would still being playing with a very good player on most other teams. So the inflation isn't infinite.

Is it 10 'extra' points? Still leaves him at 97 and the best PPG amongst CHL eligibles.

Is it 20 extra? Still at 87 in 57 which is close to Bennett in his draft year.

Is it 30 extra? Now he's at 77 in 57 or Alex Nylander's production.


Unless people envision that Tkachuk picked up 35+ points simply by touching the puck and getting off the ice, then I don't see how these inflation concerns result in him still not being the best forward option outside of the big 3 and Dubois. TBH if he had 107 pts WITHOUT playing with Marner he would be a slam dunk to go #4 over any other player in the draft.

It should be factored in but it isn't everything when evaluating Tkachuk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good points.

It should be factored in but so should league context as q is typically higher scoring than o.
 
WTG said:
Click to expand...


He shoots a TON, like from all over the ice inside of the blueline, so that's probably a bit inflated. That's also shot attempts isn't it? Is that how Liiga tracks that stat?

---

Wouldn't have too much of a problem with Juolevi at 5.
 
banme said:
He shoots a TON, like from all over the ice inside of the blueline, so that's probably a bit inflated. That's also shot attempts isn't it? Is that how Liiga tracks that stat?

---

Wouldn't have too much of a problem with Juolevi at 5.
Click to expand...

IDK how Liiga tracks their stats. But that is CF, it just means that Laine is probably a shot machine similar to like a Ovechkin or a Stamkos.
 
WTG said:
IDK how Liiga tracks their stats. But that is CF, it just means that Laine is probably a shot machine similar to like a Ovechkin or a Stamkos.
Click to expand...

Ya duh just re-read the tweet lol, I'm a doofus.
 
Reading up on Juolevi, he seems like a great pick at 6th. I only saw him play during world juniors which he was outstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom