2016 Draft Thread | 7

[Horse McHindu]

This team isn't even close to being a cup cotender. Why would we trade a good chance at a potentially elite 18 year old talent for a 25 year old Dman who by the time we're close to being a legit contender will be close to 30 years old? Just a terrible idea.

potentially is the key word here. Yes, said 18 year old could become elite, but he could also end up being Benoit Pouliot, Thomas Hickey, Karl Alzner, Luke Schenn, Brayden Schenn, Nathan Beaulieu, Griffin Reinhart, or Elias Lindholm.

As you move away from the Top 3 in a draft, the risk variance increases substantially.

I have very little doubt that Matthews, Laine, and Puli will become excellent players. Hell, I even put Dubois on that list. I'm just not completely sold on Tkatchuk or anyone below Tkatchuk. Again - I could be wrong, but time will tell.

With Vatanen, you get a 'sure thing' while filling a major organizational need.

I agree with you that even with Vatanen, the Canucks would be a number of years away from competing, but you could still get 3-4 years of Vatanen in the Canucks' new window (i.e. sign Vatanen for 7 years).

 

[Horse McHindu]

It's a bad analogy because money was obviously not his first consideration.

True, but money *did* play a very large part in terms of where Sundin ultimately signed.

That's all I'm saying we do with Stamkos. Atleast get the guy's attention with a Toews-like offer. Atleast get us on Stamkos' radar. Right now, Vancouver is "just another city" for Stammer........just as it was for Sundin. Make the guy an unbelievable offer and you atleast get the guy's attention.

If the Canucks are lucky enough to draft Top 2-3, and land one of Laine/Puljiujarvi, it gives the Canucks a selling point when talking to Stammer's agent.

1) Money that current contending teams can't offer
2) A likely shorter path to becoming great again in comparison to other bottom feeding teams (i.e. Stammer playing with Laine or Puljiu on a 1st line in 2 seasons, twins riding shotgun on a 2nd line, Horvat/Sutter on a 3rd line, Edler-Tanev-Hutton-STUD on defense thanks to Miller/Burr's contract being off the books).

 

[y2kcanucks]

I don't agree at all.

Laine is an absolute beast and has a considerably bigger upside.

Matthews looks to me like a Tavares-level talent (which is pretty damned good, to be fair) but Laine looks like he can be an Ovechkin/Malkin level talent.

How so?

Even just comparing Laine with Barkov, Laine doesn't compare favourably.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

You're much better off drafting a player and having him as your slave for a few years rather than trading for an rfa that you're going to have to lock up and is due a big raise.

Even a player slightly worse than batman will be more valuable if he's making the league minimum. That's just how it works with a salary cap.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't agree at all.

Laine is an absolute beast and has a considerably bigger upside.

Matthews looks to me like a Tavares-level talent (which is pretty damned good, to be fair) but Laine looks like he can be an Ovechkin/Malkin level talent.

There is a talent disparity, yes, but also a game disparity. Laine is clearly a 1way player. That's what should temper the upside expectations for him. This is even present when comparing Malkin to Ovechkin alone, it matters.

 

[pitseleh]

Even if Laine increases his scoring by 25% next year, he still will not be a PPG player in SM-Liga.

Worth mentioning that, including Laine's playoffs, he'd still need a 70% increase in productivity to meet Matthews' PPG.

The Swiss league is slightly worse, but that's a pretty substantial gap.

That said, it also seems like Laine has taken a huge leap forward in the second half of the season, and it may be that he's hit a new norm.

 

[HankNDank]

Worth mentioning that, including Laine's playoffs, he'd still need a 70% increase in productivity to meet Matthews' PPG.

The Swiss league is slightly worse, but that's a pretty substantial gap.

That said, it also seems like Laine has taken a huge leap forward in the second half of the season, and it may be that he's hit a new norm.

May be true, but it is too small a size to say for sure, but with it being so close to the draft, lots of people have short memories, maybe we have a shot at Matthews still even if we get 2nd overall? That'd be cool.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I actually kind of find myself hoping we pick 2nd, so we don't have to choose. I just feel certain that if we pick 1st, whether we pick Matthews or laine, it will end up being the wrong choice and will haunt us for years.

 

[biturbo19]

I don't agree at all.

Laine is an absolute beast and has a considerably bigger upside.

Matthews looks to me like a Tavares-level talent (which is pretty damned good, to be fair) but Laine looks like he can be an Ovechkin/Malkin level talent.

I can definitely understand this sentiment, and preferring Laine. It's not hard to see Laine projecting as one of those rare Wingers who can truly drive a 1st line (Ovechkin, Tarasenko, Kane, Benn).

But at the same time, it's just so much easier for a Center to have a bigger influence on the game. The position just inherently makes for a different (more consistent) engagement level, and typically affords a greater opportunity for elevating linemates play in the NHL game along with that.

At least, when we're talking about these sort of extremely high-end talents like Laine and Matthews. Where the talent level is close.

I just lean toward the Center for that reason. If we're talking say, an elite cream of the crop 40g/70-80pts type Tarasenko-level winger with Laine...vs a Tavares-level Center (even say the 30g-70pts version we got this year)...i still take the Center, every time.

Hard to really go wrong either way though. Those two both have the potential to be absolute franchise cornerstones.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

There is a talent disparity, yes, but also a game disparity. Laine is clearly a 1way player. That's what should temper the upside expectations for him. This is even present when comparing Malkin to Ovechkin alone, it matters.

That's what I thought until I watched some of the FEL playoffs. Multiple upon multiple takeaways in every zone. His hands (reach, vision) are as good defensively as offensively. Will that work against nhl players? I have no idea, but if he's nearby you better have that puck shielded really well or he's getting his stick on the puck. He's also very physical (only some of the time/inconsistently) which wasn't on any scouting report I ever read.

I could definitely see him having problems with coverage though. Just the pace of the nhl compared to Euro hockey is very very fast. He's a good skater once he gets going (seems faster with the puck on his stick actually) but accelerating and changing direction quickly are not strengths of his. He might not be in position to make great defensive plays some of the time, or even in position to be adequate at times.

That was a seriously incredible run in a very good men's league. Then again, putting too much stock in a playoff run (or a WJC), can be a huge mistake. #1 overall should be a very very difficult decision imo. I really can't understand that their are still people who think it's a no brainer (either way).

 

[VeestownCanuck]

Nice list. It's interesting to see when list veers or 'breaks' to include different prospects. This provides some insight as to what the poster was thinking about when making it. So a few questions on the differences in your list:


1. Laine over Matthews is popping up in lists. Not as outlandish as once thought. I wouldn't take him #1, but I can understand the rationale in banking on pure talent (Laine).

2. What do you think Pulju becomes long-term? I've heard a 1C projection thrown out there. I'm not a fan in that I find him very difficult to project.

3. Bean as the best Dman: Do you see him becoming a #1D? If so, why?

4. I like the risk taken with projecting Brown into the top10. There's a lot to work with there, even if I do think he has heavy feet and is very inconsistent. Better offensive upside than Jost?

So yeah, when I look at Laine and Matthews, it's razor thin. I'd honestly say that Matthews will go first, solely based on being a center. My opinion is Laine simply has a better chance of being the standout player of the league, and his game will translate VERY well to the NHL. Also, though his goal scoring is the most noted part of his game, he is an excellent passer and handler who, with poor teamates, still managed to put up numbers.

Puljujarvi, while I have him a cut below, looks to me like a Bergeron style player. I saw a lot of people throwing the whole Selanne angle around, and I just don't buy it. Hes a two-way player, and a potentially great one.....but he isn't scoring 40 goals, let alone 70+ as a rookie.

Ok, a few points on Bean. Not only is he the only guy I see with CLEAR potential for the a #1 D, hes the only D I see with enough upside to take this low. Honestly, if I was drafting, I wouldn't take any of these D until the mid first round, but that isn't realistic. There is so much movement on this draft group of D among scouts, radically different views on who is best. For me, an elite OFD is the only thing worth the risk in this top 10, which is very talent heavy with forwards.

Ahhh, Brown. I sat and stared at Brown and Jost when I made this list. Again, I think the difference in impact will be razor thin. For me, it comes down to the fact that you can't teach size, and Brown has A LOT of size. 6'6' 230 already, and a deceptively fast skater. He doesn't really play mean, but he grinds well and he'll finish checks.....you won't have to protect him on the ice. Jost is 5'11" and 190. Not tiny, but smaller than you'd like. It's hard to pick against a Vee for me, but I think him being in the top 10 is a coup anyway.

 

[VeestownCanuck]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If the Canucks have some lottery luck (i.e. the exact opposite of my experience on Tankathon where I continuously end up at #5), and we end up drafting Laine or Puljiujarvi, then I think the Canucks should do everything under the sun to sign Stamkos. Period. Offer him the Toews deal....maybe even more.

This probably won't be a super popular opinion, but I want to throw it out there. I don't think the team is ready to invest what it would take to sign Stamkos. His contract would be prohibitive, and the first two years of it (at least) would be spent while we try to tidy up the team to compete. You add him, all it does is hurt our draft position and tie up a huge cap hit.

In my opinion, we should use cap to get short term TDL assets and stockpile talent for a couple more years. Then, we swing for a R. Johansen or Tavares.....when we have stocked cupboards and elite depth coming into it's own.

I'd rather have Stamkos at a gross deal than Lucic at pretty much any deal, but I'd much rather have neither.

 

[MS]

Who says it has to be for "a couple years' of service?" Vatanen is an RFA next year and can easily be signed for very long term. Vatanen has the type of game that ages well and so I don't think signing him to a 7 year deal would be overly risky.

Positional need factors in as well here. As much as a guy like Tkatchuk *might* become a pretty damned good player, I think the Canucks' need for a 'very good' young RHD supercedes every other positional need outside of a young franchise center.

potentially is the key word here. Yes, said 18 year old could become elite, but he could also end up being Benoit Pouliot, Thomas Hickey, Karl Alzner, Luke Schenn, Brayden Schenn, Nathan Beaulieu, Griffin Reinhart, or Elias Lindholm.

As you move away from the Top 3 in a draft, the risk variance increases substantially.

I have very little doubt that Matthews, Laine, and Puli will become excellent players. Hell, I even put Dubois on that list. I'm just not completely sold on Tkatchuk or anyone below Tkatchuk. Again - I could be wrong, but time will tell.

With Vatanen, you get a 'sure thing' while filling a major organizational need.

I agree with you that even with Vatanen, the Canucks would be a number of years away from competing, but you could still get 3-4 years of Vatanen in the Canucks' new window (i.e. sign Vatanen for 7 years).

You simply don't trade top-5 picks for middle-aged solid players.

You HAVE to take the chance of getting an impact player with that pick. Absolutely, it's probably a 33% chance you'll get someone better than Vatanen, 33% chance someone similar, 33% chance someone worse. And in a vacuum, trading the pick for an established player is the 'safe' move.

But this team absolutely *HAS* to hit some home runs. Need to have a pick in this range turn into a Monahan or a long-term impact player. Trading away that opportunity is insane.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That's what I thought until I watched some of the FEL playoffs. Multiple upon multiple takeaways in every zone...

I could definitely see him having problems with coverage though... He might not be in position to make great defensive plays some of the time, or even in position to be adequate at times.

...I really can't understand that their are still people who think it's a no brainer (either way).

It's close, but I give Matthews the edge. What he gives up in pure talent, he makes up for in his all around game. He's effective everywhere. And Laine does struggle at times with his positioning and defensive focus. Recognized more as a 1way talent.

But these are all #FirstWorldProblems. To get either player would be outstanding.

So yeah, when I look at Laine and Matthews, it's razor thin. I'd honestly say that Matthews will go first, solely based on being a center. My opinion is Laine simply has a better chance of being the standout player of the league, and his game will translate VERY well to the NHL. Also, though his goal scoring is the most noted part of his game, he is an excellent passer and handler who, with poor teamates, still managed to put up numbers.

Puljujarvi, while I have him a cut below, looks to me like a Bergeron style player. I saw a lot of people throwing the whole Selanne angle around, and I just don't buy it. Hes a two-way player, and a potentially great one.....but he isn't scoring 40 goals, let alone 70+ as a rookie.

Ok, a few points on Bean. Not only is he the only guy I see with CLEAR potential for the a #1 D, hes the only D I see with enough upside to take this low. Honestly, if I was drafting, I wouldn't take any of these D until the mid first round, but that isn't realistic. There is so much movement on this draft group of D among scouts, radically different views on who is best. For me, an elite OFD is the only thing worth the risk in this top 10, which is very talent heavy with forwards.

Ahhh, Brown. I sat and stared at Brown and Jost when I made this list. Again, I think the difference in impact will be razor thin. For me, it comes down to the fact that you can't teach size, and Brown has A LOT of size. 6'6' 230 already, and a deceptively fast skater. He doesn't really play mean, but he grinds well and he'll finish checks.....you won't have to protect him on the ice. Jost is 5'11" and 190. Not tiny, but smaller than you'd like. It's hard to pick against a Vee for me, but I think him being in the top 10 is a coup anyway.

Fair enough on Laine/Matthews. I still prefer Matthews, but there is a case to be made for Laine.

I don't understand Bergeron comparison for Puljujarvi. He's not methodical, more jumpy. Better toolset, but not as smart. Would have to make a complete conversion to centre as well. Very hard to project this player (for me).

Bean isn't good enough defensively, or in terms of strength, for me to project him as a #1D. He's the best OFD in the draft, but I would bank on more rounded talents becoming true #1s, before I would bank on him doing the same. Still, one of my favourite Ds in the draft.

Brown is "deceptively fast"? He seems slow to me. Suspect agility as well.

 

[MS]

Even if Laine increases his scoring by 25% next year, he still will not be a PPG player in SM-Liga.

I feel reasonably confident in saying he'd increase his scoring by 25% next year, based on what he showed in the 2nd half of this year. Not that he'll be in that league next year.

How so?

Even just comparing Laine with Barkov, Laine doesn't compare favourably.

I had Barkov as a comfortable #1 overall in his draft year, so that doesn't mean a lot. And Draisaitl over Reinhart. My track record here isn't bad.

No, he didn't score how Barkov did. But he's on an upward surge right now the likes of which I'm not sure I've ever seen before and just steamrolled a men's league playoffs at age 17.

There's more than just points. Rostislav Olesz and Eveni Malkin had the same number of men's league points in their draft year. One projected just a little bit better. Laine's tools are absurd and if he pans out he'll be a top-3 player in the sport. I don't see the same upside in Matthews.

I can definitely understand this sentiment, and preferring Laine. It's not hard to see Laine projecting as one of those rare Wingers who can truly drive a 1st line (Ovechkin, Tarasenko, Kane, Benn).

But at the same time, it's just so much easier for a Center to have a bigger influence on the game. The position just inherently makes for a different (more consistent) engagement level, and typically affords a greater opportunity for elevating linemates play in the NHL game along with that.

At least, when we're talking about these sort of extremely high-end talents like Laine and Matthews. Where the talent level is close.

I just lean toward the Center for that reason. If we're talking say, an elite cream of the crop 40g/70-80pts type Tarasenko-level winger with Laine...vs a Tavares-level Center (even say the 30g-70pts version we got this year)...i still take the Center, every time.

Hard to really go wrong either way though. Those two both have the potential to be absolute franchise cornerstones.

I don't disagree with this. In theory.

And I might be wrong. But the way Laine is trending right now there is no way I could pass him up.

 

[VeestownCanuck]

It's close, but I give Matthews the edge. What he gives up in pure talent, he makes up for in his all around game. He's effective everywhere. And Laine does struggle at times with his positioning and defensive focus. Recognized more as a 1way talent.

But these are all #FirstWorldProblems. To get either player would be outstanding.





Fair enough on Laine/Matthews. I still prefer Matthews, but there is a case to be made for Laine.

I don't understand Bergeron comparison for Puljujarvi. He's not methodical, more jumpy. Better toolset, but not as smart. Would have to make a complete conversion to centre as well. Very hard to project this player (for me).

Bean isn't good enough defensively, or in terms of strength, for me to project him as a #1D. He's the best OFD in the draft, but I would bank on more rounded talents becoming true #1s, before I would bank on him doing the same. Still, one of my favourite Ds in the draft.

Brown is "deceptively fast"? He seems slow to me. Suspect agility as well.

I agree with you on Laine/Matthews. Laine needs to improve his skating to truly become a complete player, Matthews is there, but doesn't have (in my mind) that next level offensive gift. Chocolate or Vanilla?

For Puljujarvi, Bergeron was a bad name to throw out. I was more thinking his tenacity. Let's go with, say, a Kovalchuk? (I suck at player comparisons lol)

I don't think there is a #1 D in this draft to be seen. Not that one won't emerge, but I am banking its a second rounder or late first that had no business being drafted low. I think we'll start seeing a trend (like with goaltenders) where smart teams start backing off drafting them low, unless they are SLAM dunks. Super hard to predict.....which is also why I think OFD drafting higher is safer (like forwards) its easier to see what you're getting.

Brown is faster than people give him credit for, and super hard on the puck. I commonly argue this point. Maybe I'm just delusional.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

And I might be wrong. But the way Laine is trending right now there is no way I could pass him up.

Sorry for cutting the rest of your post, but this is exactly my thought. There's just no way to explain in words how good he was in those playoffs. I remember watching Barkov during the lockout when he was playing on a line with Hansen, I really like Barkov, but what Laine just did was something else altogether.

How do you quantify 'it' factor? Some of those games just revolved around the next time Laine stepped on the ice. I mean the Finnish fans, and play by play guys, and how the game itself changed when he was out there. Not an armchair scout version of 'it' factor. Can he do that in the NHL? I wouldn't pass on that chance either.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree with you on Laine/Matthews. Laine needs to improve his skating to truly become a complete player, Matthews is there, but doesn't have (in my mind) that next level offensive gift. Chocolate or Vanilla?

For Puljujarvi, Bergeron was a bad name to throw out. I was more thinking his tenacity. Let's go with, say, a Kovalchuk? (I suck at player comparisons lol)

I don't think there is a #1 D in this draft to be seen. Not that one won't emerge, but I am banking its a second rounder or late first that had no business being drafted low. I think we'll start seeing a trend (like with goaltenders) where smart teams start backing off drafting them low, unless they are SLAM dunks. Super hard to predict.....which is also why I think OFD drafting higher is safer (like forwards) its easier to see what you're getting.

Brown is faster than people give him credit for, and super hard on the puck. I commonly argue this point. Maybe I'm just delusional.

Agree with most of what you say. I find Pulju to be very difficult to project and cannot find a comparable for him either.

I don't think you are delusional on Brown's speed. He gets where needs to go. He just 'looks' slow to me. Lumbering. Heavy feet like Jones has heavy feet. But I could be getting caught up in that without recognizing his skating efficiency. He gets there.

 

[Uhmkay]

For some reason when I watch Laine and Puljujarvi I think of little bit about Jamie Benn and Tyler Seguin.

Laine to me is a little like Benn. Uses his size better than Puljujarvi and is a great sniper without great skating speed. He's able to use his abilities and like Benn can create chances on his own and has a knack for being in the right spot to score with his shot.

Puljujarvi is still a decent goal scorer, but is a better playmaker with much better skating and is more defensively aware than Laine. Puljujarvi might also be better suited to one day make the switch to Centre.

It's unfortunate we can't draft them both. Too bad they weren't twins and Burke was still the GM.... just for this one draft.

I can see why people like Laine, but to be honest, I think Puljujarvi is going to also be a great player and I honestly think that with his speed and playmaking abilities, his upside as an all around player will be very high, although he may not score as many goals on average as Laine.

 

[MS]

Sorry for cutting the rest of your post, but this is exactly my thought. There's just no way to explain in words how good he was in those playoffs. I remember watching Barkov during the lockout when he was playing on a line with Hansen, I really like Barkov, but what Laine just did was something else altogether.

How do you quantify 'it' factor? Some of those games just revolved around the next time Laine stepped on the ice. I mean the Finnish fans, and play by play guys, and how the game itself changed when he was out there. Not an armchair scout version of 'it' factor. Can he do that in the NHL? I wouldn't pass on that chance either.

Yup.

What he just did was unheard-of, and just screams Ovechkin-type megastar to me.

I understand all the logic behind taking the center, and behind Matthew's longer track record of high level production ... but the upside Laine is showing is just absurd. If I'm drafting #1, it's an easy decision.

Like you say, there's just an 'it' factor or 'star' factor there that you don't see very often.

 

[Uhmkay]

One more thing. I'm almost hoping that we draft 3rd because you know that if we draft 1st or 2nd, the 3rd guy is going to pan out better. At least drafting 3rd, we know we didn't have a chance at the other two if they turned out better.

We won't have another 1990 draft where we're left looking back thinking "Damn.... we could have had Jagr... "

 

[M2Beezy]

One more thing. I'm almost hoping that we draft 3rd because you know that if we draft 1st or 2nd, the 3rd guy is going to pan out better. At least drafting 3rd, we know we didn't have a chance at the other two if they turned out better.

We won't have another 1990 draft where we're left looking back thinking "Damn.... we could have had Jagr... "

1st would be better cause of this

Matthews >> Laine >> Pulji

 

[fancouver]

Matthews was ranked 1st overall for the majority of the season and even before the season began. Laine was always the clear cut #2, but was ranked #3 in earlier drafts. There's a lot to be said about consistency.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

What about Vancouver born Russian Boris Katchouck? Any chance he falls to 33rd?

 

[Desai87]

I dont even feel like talking about who to pick when we dont know where we will pick.

Need top 3 pick.