2023 NHL Entry Draft Discussion

[MS]

It's one thing to 'ruin your draft position' in a year where there's no consensus first overall pick or a 'generational talent' like Bedard up for drafting.

But history will show that when McDavid was drafted first overall in 2015 and Bedard was drafted first overall in 2023, the Canucks were one of the worst teams in the entire NHL and still didn't get a sniff.

We finished with 101 points in 2015 and home-ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

In 2023 we're literally 20+ points clear of the bottom-3 trifecta of Columbus/Anaheim/Chicago.

We were nowhere near getting either of those players barring a low-percentage lottery win this year.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

We finished with 101 points in 2015 and home-ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

In 2023 we're literally 20+ points clear of the bottom-3 trifecta of Columbus/Anaheim/Chicago.

We were nowhere near getting either of those players barring a low-percentage lottery win this year.

Our promise to the Vancouver Canucks fans all around the world: We are never the best, and not really even trying to be, but it is our absolute guarantee to you, our valued customers, that we will never be the worst.

 

[Bankerguy]

Signing 21-2 year old NCAA players is like going back in time 4-5 years and getting extra 3rd, 4th, 5th round picks that trended "on track".
Maybe Hirose looking decent at 21 yrs old is like getting a free 2nd round pick in the 2018 draft

 

[Donuts]

bedard to canucks baby

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

This year there is a "Sea of Granlunds" swimming around their probable draft position.

What will likely happen is there will be a continual disconnection between what the coaches and managers want and who they draft. For example, Tocchet says they need to get bigger at forward and on D, and need to win puck battles but instead they will once again draft players who are small and natural centres to seal the boards and get the puck off the glass and out.
Yet, management says they need to get faster and some right shots.

They will get frustrated when the player's development is stalled and aren't clever enough to figure out why.

This cycle will continue until the scouting and drafting and management and coaches are aligned.

It is the Canuck way.

 

[Hodgy]

This has been commented on before, but it's such a weird Mandala Effect here.

In the cap era :

- both times we missed the playoffs under Nonis we totally collapsed down the stretch when we were sitting in a playoff position at the All-Star break.

- the only time we missed the playoffs under Gillis was the Torts year where we totally collapsed to the #6 overall pick after being in the playoffs at the All-Star break.

- basically every year under Benning we started the year reasonably well and then totally shat the bed to close out the season.

The only two years we've actually played well and harmed our draft position are the last two, and last year's run started in December.

But it's like people set a baseline that we should go 5-25 over the last 30 games and if we go 10-20 OMG THE MEANINGLESS WINS HAVE SCREWED OUR DRAFT POSITION. 2016 is always the example used but we went 9-18-1 over the last 28 games which is a 54-point full-season pace in a year where 69 points finished last in the league. We sucked our way from about 10th to 5th in the draft down the stretch that season but somehow people act like we went on a huge run because we won 2 games in California at one point.

Prior to last year, the last time we actually mucked our draft position with a late run was in 1997. People wanting to look at late runs consistently *actually* ruining draft positions should look at the history of the Coyotes.

For me, my frustration comes from the fact that this team isn’t trying to tank this season. They could’ve easily done that by not firing Boudreau and continuing to play one of Martin or Delia half the games even when Demko was healthy. And they probably would’ve finished in the bottom five. But this management doesn’t want to tank this season. They want to finish strong and set themselves up for the playoffs. That’s the goal, and make no mistake about it, they absolutely value a strong finish to the season over a top pick.

 

[MS]

For me, my frustration comes from the fact that this team isn’t trying to tank this season. They could’ve easily done that by not firing Boudreau and continuing to play one of Martin or Delia half the games even when Demko was healthy. And they probably would’ve finished in the bottom five. But this management doesn’t want to tank this season. They want to finish strong and set themselves up for the playoffs. That’s the goal, and make no mistake about it, they absolutely value a strong finish to the season over a top pick.

This mindset baffles me and I'll re-post what I posted a couple weeks ago on this subject. The value established or re-established from this run greatly exceeds the value lost by dropping a couple picks in the draft.

- dropping 3 or 4 spots in the draft

vs.

- JT Miller doing a 180 on his disaster season and re-establishing himself as an impact player (and a substantially positive-value asset).

- guys the team would love to move in Myers and Boeser who were playing atrocious hockey under Boudreau have had a decent bounce under Tocchet to increase their value and chances of being moved this summer. Or at least set a platform for better play and getting more value if we're stuck with them. Garland as well has been greatly improved and has made himself more tradeable than under Boudreau.

- Beauvillier was acquired as a marginal value asset (really don't want to get into the 'cap dump' stuff) and has rebuild his value significantly and will set a career-high in points.

- lots of guys have taken a step at various levels. Hughes and Pettersson have been monstrous and played the best hockey of their careers. Joshua and Aman have taken a big step forward and look like guys we move forward with. Di Giuseppe/Wolanin/Brisebois have had positive auditions and earned new contracts and look like positive cheap depth.

- Demko has rebounded and re-established himself after a disastrous start to the season.

And, like, nothing on that 2nd list happens when the team is in disarray and losing most games and tanking out the season. When that happens, everything rots. And it's important stuff, and adds a lot of value - whether it's getting more value in trades or just being able to move guys, or using that improved play and value internally to improve next year. Obviously not all of this will stick, but some of it will, and it matters.

It's just *so* myopic to be stuck in 'we could have drafted 7th and now we're drafting 9th and ITS A TOTAL DISASTER' and I really can't get over the mindset.

 

[Hodgy]

This mindset baffles me and I'll re-post what I posted a couple weeks ago on this subject. The value established or re-established from this run greatly exceeds the value lost by dropping a couple picks in the draft.

- dropping 3 or 4 spots in the draft

vs.

- JT Miller doing a 180 on his disaster season and re-establishing himself as an impact player (and a substantially positive-value asset).

- guys the team would love to move in Myers and Boeser who were playing atrocious hockey under Boudreau have had a decent bounce under Tocchet to increase their value and chances of being moved this summer. Or at least set a platform for better play and getting more value if we're stuck with them. Garland as well has been greatly improved and has made himself more tradeable than under Boudreau.

- Beauvillier was acquired as a marginal value asset (really don't want to get into the 'cap dump' stuff) and has rebuild his value significantly and will set a career-high in points.

- lots of guys have taken a step at various levels. Hughes and Pettersson have been monstrous and played the best hockey of their careers. Joshua and Aman have taken a big step forward and look like guys we move forward with. Di Giuseppe/Wolanin/Brisebois have had positive auditions and earned new contracts and look like positive cheap depth.

- Demko has rebounded and re-established himself after a disastrous start to the season.

And, like, nothing on that 2nd list happens when the team is in disarray and losing most games and tanking out the season. When that happens, everything rots. And it's important stuff, and adds a lot of value - whether it's getting more value in trades or just being able to move guys, or using that improved play and value internally to improve next year. Obviously not all of this will stick, but some of it will, and it matters.

It's just *so* myopic to be stuck in 'we could have drafted 7th and now we're drafting 9th and ITS A TOTAL DISASTER' and I really can't get over the mindset.

I think you find it baffling because your perspective is that a more longer term rebuild than competing now is not preferable. You’ve also quantified the difference in draft picks as “3-4” when in reality it’s probably 5-7. Some of your reasons are also illogical. Specifically:

-there is no reason to think Miller wouldn’t bounce back next year. It’s not like he hasn’t been playing on a shitty team for years. So we are likely talking about him bouncing back 4 months earlier or whatever which is meaningless unless we trade him this summer

- I agree to an extent on Boeser, Garland and Myers. But it’s only been 4 months, and frankly, I don’t really think Myers or Boeser has bounced back much. Plus, who knows if they wouldn’t have played better as the year went on? For Boeser, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have. With that said, if the Canucks unload one or two of them this summer then I agree that the stronger finish was a benefit in that sense but really only a short term benefit. If one is looking long term it’s not consequential

-Beauvillier is interesting. I don’t think it matters since I don’t think they will trade him this summer. So again, as with Miller, there is no reason to think that Beauvillier wouldn’t have just rebounded next year (and that if course assumes he wouldn’t have rebounded anyway just as a result of the trade)

-Demko - same as Miller. He was either going to rebound or not and four months wasn’t going to make or break that. Plus, he could have rebounded while playing half the games he has.

As for your last two paragraphs, I think it’s clear your whole “players rebounding” argument is based on the faulty premise that they wouldn’t have rebounded next year.

And you writing off the complaint as 7th vs 9th isn’t fair or reasonable. Pretty clearly this treat had a shot at 3-5 with Boudreau and Martin starting every other game when Demko was back.

 

[Gstank]

I think you find it baffling because your perspective is that a more longer term rebuild than competing now is not preferable. You’ve also quantified the difference in draft picks as “3-4” when in reality it’s probably 5-7. Some of your reasons are also illogical. Specifically:

-there is no reason to think Miller wouldn’t bounce back next year. It’s not like he hasn’t been playing on a shitty team for years. So we are likely talking about him bouncing back 4 months earlier or whatever which is meaningless unless we trade him this summer

- I agree to an extent on Boeser, Garland and Myers. But it’s only been 4 months, and frankly, I don’t really think Myers or Boeser has bounced back much. Plus, who knows if they wouldn’t have played better as the year went on? For Boeser, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have. With that said, if the Canucks unload one or two of them this summer then I agree that the stronger finish was a benefit in that sense but really only a short term benefit. If one is looking long term it’s not consequential

-Beauvillier is interesting. I don’t think it matters since I don’t think they will trade him this summer. So again, as with Miller, there is no reason to think that Beauvillier wouldn’t have just rebounded next year (and that if course assumes he wouldn’t have rebounded anyway just as a result of the trade)

-Demko - same as Miller. He was either going to rebound or not and four months wasn’t going to make or break that. Plus, he could have rebounded while playing half the games he has.

As for your last two paragraphs, I think it’s clear your whole “players rebounding” argument is based on the faulty premise that they wouldn’t have rebounded next year.

And you writing off the complaint as 7th vs 9th isn’t fair or reasonable. Pretty clearly this treat had a shot at 3-5 with Boudreau and Martin starting every other game when Demko was back.

That was never going to happen. Period. There is no point in even thinking about it.

 

[Hodgy]

That was never going to happen. Period. There is no point in even thinking about it.

I know it wasn’t going to happen because this management wants to make the playoffs next year.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Maybe the team wasn't going to finish 3rd last but there's a big difference between say 6th last and 10th last - specifically in regards to the odds of winning 1st or 2nd overall. If the Canucks had finished 6th last they would've had a 15.4% chance (combined) of getting the 1st or 2nd. With 10th overall that drops to 7.3%.

 

[Gstank]

Maybe the team wasn't going to finish 3rd last but there's a big difference between say 6th last and 10th last - specifically in regards to the odds of winning 1st or 2nd overall. If the Canucks had finished 6th last they would've had a 15.4% chance (combined) of getting the 1st or 2nd. With 10th overall that drops to 7.3%.

At 8th overall its a 12.4 % chance at 9th its 10.4%. It really drops off after 9. Which it seems like we are going to be drafting 8th/9th.

 

[racerjoe]

I think you find it baffling because your perspective is that a more longer term rebuild than competing now is not preferable. You’ve also quantified the difference in draft picks as “3-4” when in reality it’s probably 5-7. Some of your reasons are also illogical. Specifically:

-there is no reason to think Miller wouldn’t bounce back next year. It’s not like he hasn’t been playing on a shitty team for years. So we are likely talking about him bouncing back 4 months earlier or whatever which is meaningless unless we trade him this summer

- I agree to an extent on Boeser, Garland and Myers. But it’s only been 4 months, and frankly, I don’t really think Myers or Boeser has bounced back much. Plus, who knows if they wouldn’t have played better as the year went on? For Boeser, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have. With that said, if the Canucks unload one or two of them this summer then I agree that the stronger finish was a benefit in that sense but really only a short term benefit. If one is looking long term it’s not consequential

-Beauvillier is interesting. I don’t think it matters since I don’t think they will trade him this summer. So again, as with Miller, there is no reason to think that Beauvillier wouldn’t have just rebounded next year (and that if course assumes he wouldn’t have rebounded anyway just as a result of the trade)

-Demko - same as Miller. He was either going to rebound or not and four months wasn’t going to make or break that. Plus, he could have rebounded while playing half the games he has.

As for your last two paragraphs, I think it’s clear your whole “players rebounding” argument is based on the faulty premise that they wouldn’t have rebounded next year.

And you writing off the complaint as 7th vs 9th isn’t fair or reasonable. Pretty clearly this treat had a shot at 3-5 with Boudreau and Martin starting every other game when Demko was back.

Even when we were 5th last in the NHL we were still projected to finish 9th. This is based on strength of schedule among other things and was from multiple sites. We are now not able to finish worse then 12th. I don't think the difference is nearly as big as most of us think.

 

[Horvat1C]

I think you find it baffling because your perspective is that a more longer term rebuild than competing now is not preferable. You’ve also quantified the difference in draft picks as “3-4” when in reality it’s probably 5-7. Some of your reasons are also illogical. Specifically:

-there is no reason to think Miller wouldn’t bounce back next year. It’s not like he hasn’t been playing on a shitty team for years. So we are likely talking about him bouncing back 4 months earlier or whatever which is meaningless unless we trade him this summer

- I agree to an extent on Boeser, Garland and Myers. But it’s only been 4 months, and frankly, I don’t really think Myers or Boeser has bounced back much. Plus, who knows if they wouldn’t have played better as the year went on? For Boeser, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have. With that said, if the Canucks unload one or two of them this summer then I agree that the stronger finish was a benefit in that sense but really only a short term benefit. If one is looking long term it’s not consequential

-Beauvillier is interesting. I don’t think it matters since I don’t think they will trade him this summer. So again, as with Miller, there is no reason to think that Beauvillier wouldn’t have just rebounded next year (and that if course assumes he wouldn’t have rebounded anyway just as a result of the trade)

-Demko - same as Miller. He was either going to rebound or not and four months wasn’t going to make or break that. Plus, he could have rebounded while playing half the games he has.

As for your last two paragraphs, I think it’s clear your whole “players rebounding” argument is based on the faulty premise that they wouldn’t have rebounded next year.

And you writing off the complaint as 7th vs 9th isn’t fair or reasonable. Pretty clearly this treat had a shot at 3-5 with Boudreau and Martin starting every other game when Demko was back.

The difference is certainty. Going into an offseason with Miller as a negative value asset to the organization and hoping he can bounce back is a lot different than one where Miller has already bounced back and you can build from there.

 

[Hodgy]

The difference is certainty. Going into an offseason with Miller as a negative value asset to the organization and hoping he can bounce back is a lot different than one where Miller has already bounced back and you can build from there.

Sure, I acknowledged there is a benefit. But I don’t think this management has any intent to trade Miller so it’s a moot point from that perspective.

Even when we were 5th last in the NHL we were still projected to finish 9th. This is based on strength of schedule among other things and was from multiple sites. We are now not able to finish worse then 12th. I don't think the difference is nearly as big as most of us think.

When was that though? I am talking not firing Boudreau, so we are going back some time. I don’t recall ant 9th overall predictions in January. But anyway, given that we are probably going to finish around 9th, in hindsight, I think it’s obvious we could have finished much lower if Boudreau wasn’t fired and Martin started every other game once Demko was back.

 

[racerjoe]

Sure, I acknowledged there is a benefit. But I don’t think this management has any intent to trade Miller so it’s a moot point from that perspective.


When was that though? I am talking not firing Boudreau, so we are going back some time. I don’t recall ant 9th overall predictions in January. But anyway, given that we are probably going to finish around 9th, in hindsight, I think it’s obvious we could have finished much lower if Boudreau wasn’t fired and Martin started every other game once Demko was back.

I don't remember the date, but when we hit rock bottom and were 5th last... these projections change, you can see them on sites like tankathon, I posted a random one a few weeks back that had us still finishing in 9th, with 83 points. 9th has been our most likely finishing spot for a long time.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

The prediction is that the "Sea of Granlunds" starts around 5 or 6 so the Canucks can still get a Mushy middle prospect at 8-11, or is it a "Musty" middle prospect in this draft?

Elite Prospects - NHL Draft Center THE HOCKEY NEWS TOP 32

THE HOCKEY NEWS TOP 32 - MID-SEASON RANKING for the NHL Entry Draft

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[MS]

I think you find it baffling because your perspective is that a more longer term rebuild than competing now is not preferable. You’ve also quantified the difference in draft picks as “3-4” when in reality it’s probably 5-7. Some of your reasons are also illogical. Specifically:

-there is no reason to think Miller wouldn’t bounce back next year. It’s not like he hasn’t been playing on a shitty team for years. So we are likely talking about him bouncing back 4 months earlier or whatever which is meaningless unless we trade him this summer

- I agree to an extent on Boeser, Garland and Myers. But it’s only been 4 months, and frankly, I don’t really think Myers or Boeser has bounced back much. Plus, who knows if they wouldn’t have played better as the year went on? For Boeser, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have. With that said, if the Canucks unload one or two of them this summer then I agree that the stronger finish was a benefit in that sense but really only a short term benefit. If one is looking long term it’s not consequential

-Beauvillier is interesting. I don’t think it matters since I don’t think they will trade him this summer. So again, as with Miller, there is no reason to think that Beauvillier wouldn’t have just rebounded next year (and that if course assumes he wouldn’t have rebounded anyway just as a result of the trade)

-Demko - same as Miller. He was either going to rebound or not and four months wasn’t going to make or break that. Plus, he could have rebounded while playing half the games he has.

As for your last two paragraphs, I think it’s clear your whole “players rebounding” argument is based on the faulty premise that they wouldn’t have rebounded next year.

And you writing off the complaint as 7th vs 9th isn’t fair or reasonable. Pretty clearly this treat had a shot at 3-5 with Boudreau and Martin starting every other game when Demko was back.

The lowest we were hovering was in the 5-6 range and that was based on generationally terrible goaltending from Martin/Delia and a tough schedule to that point. We were never going to hold that spot when Demko returned and the schedule got easier.

We're now going to be drafting 8th-9th.

We've dropped 3-4 spots from the lowest we could potentially have finished. We were absolutely never getting into the 3-4 overall range.

And yes, the value generated from this improved play greatly exceeds the value lost from that small drop in the draft.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Weird....

View attachment 682249

Sportsnet's 2023 NHL Draft Prospect Rankings: March Edition

Sam Cosentino shares his latest ranking of the top 32 prospects for the deep 2023 NHL draft class.

www.sportsnet.ca

Ah, one or two rankings. He's still not a "All Star F 1D". The guy i responded to had him in Michov's tier. The hype is funny coming from ppl that haven't watched one game... ...and i like him. He's just not as NHL ready as ppl are making him to be.

 

[Knight53]

Bedard
Fantilli
Carlsson
Michkov
Reinbacher
Benson
Moore
Smith
Danielson
Barlow
Simashev
Dvorsky

These guys look like top6 F/top 4 D to me. Starting to like Moore over Smith. Danielson is underrated.

Honzek/Ritchie/Leonard/Dragicevic will probably be middle of the line-up players.

Cristall/Sale/Wood/Gulyayev biggest boom/bust players.

 

[Horvat1C]

Sure, I acknowledged there is a benefit. But I don’t think this management has any intent to trade Miller so it’s a moot point from that perspective.

It's not purely about trading Miller. Going into an offseason without the 2C spot filled changes the outlook for the organization's entire offseason, not just making it more difficult to trade Miller.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Reinbacher is ranked 26th by Craig Button. If he is right, it is a bit risky taking him in the top 15?

Elite Prospects - NHL Draft Center TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32

TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32 - FINAL RANKING for the NHL Entry Draft

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[Vector]

Reinbacher is ranked 26th by Craig Button. If he is right, it is a bit risky taking him in the top 15?

Elite Prospects - NHL Draft Center TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32

TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32 - FINAL RANKING for the NHL Entry Draft

www.eliteprospects.com

Pronman has him 7th. If he’s right, it is a bit risky to but grab him in the top 15?

 

[Hodgy]

The lowest we were hovering was in the 5-6 range and that was based on generationally terrible goaltending from Martin/Delia and a tough schedule to that point. We were never going to hold that spot when Demko returned and the schedule got easier.

We're now going to be drafting 8th-9th.

We've dropped 3-4 spots from the lowest we could potentially have finished. We were absolutely never getting into the 3-4 overall range.

And yes, the value generated from this improved play greatly exceeds the value lost from that small drop in the draft.

You are correct that 5th seems to be the lowest. I think at that time we had a shot at 4th but the worst three teams were out of grasp. I think a 4-5th finish was unlikely but possible. You are right goaltending was driving that but we could have just continued to put Martin out there as much as possible and that would have done a ton. If we kept Boudreau as well morale would have continued to decline and it’s possible things actually got worse.

I agree with everyone that strength of schedule was going to be tough.

But anyway, we could actually finish 11th pretty easily. This team is playing well and that’s by design. And if we finish 11th then we are like 5-7 picks off. And taking into quality of player and draft odds that’s pretty significant and could move the needle long term. Especially when you consider that most of the “benefits” you listed are really just very short term benefits in order to compete next year (which is obviously extremely important to this management group) but are likely pretty meaningless long term.

With that all said, I get that you want the team to compete in the short term, so I get why you’d prefer a strong finish. It makes sense. But my point is that you shouldn’t be “baffled” if someone is frustrated by the finish if they prefer a more long term approach.

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Reinbacher is ranked 26th by Craig Button. If he is right, it is a bit risky taking him in the top 15?

Elite Prospects - NHL Draft Center TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32

TSN/CRAIG BUTTON TOP 32 - FINAL RANKING for the NHL Entry Draft

www.eliteprospects.com

His rankings rely a lot on international tournaments. Reinbachers only international tournaments were the WJC (2022, 2023, and U-18 2022), and his teams each time were thoroughly outmatched. As a result, he did not look great but there was not much he could do. The same reason why I think he has a lot of Russians ranked low except for Mitchkov.