Prospect Info: 2024 27th Overall - Marek Vanacker

Darkstar

Registered User
Nov 3, 2007
651
657
Denver, CO
First off, I really like Vanacker. Really high compete and motor. I think he's a solid middle 6 prospect. Secondly, I know we have a lot picks the next few years, but it seems that Kyle is getting really casual with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beukeboom Fan

Hinterland

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2016
12,597
6,278
Slick stickhandler. Vanacker can cleanly beat goalies with his shot. He’s a bit undersized, but makes up for it in nearly every other facet of his game. Could use some more top end speed, but he makes good use of space and knows how to maneuver into openings. Plays with a high motor and is always hustling.
I'm a huge fan of this prospect and that's a spot on description of Vanacker. He's a coaches dream. Put an entire team on his back as a draft eligible forward...despite being injured. He's someone you want out on the ice in every situation. He's just so intense, never takes a shift off. And I think EP's Cerebral Tactician label is very accurate as well. It's pretty crazy to see how, at least in the OHL, he's just thinking the game much faster than everybody else. He did not really have much help on his team and he's more of a goal scorer than playmaker himself but he's creating so much offense just by always being in the right spot. His ability to calculate/evaluate where the puck is gonna end up next is pretty crazy. Almost every shift he keeps on creating quality chances for himself and his teammates just by getting into passing lanes, getting to pucks first after broken plays and taking pucks away from opponents. Whenever there's a 50/50 puck... with Vanacker involved the odds aren't really 50/50. Vanacker is almost always gonna get there first. When watching him you may at first think that he's just incredibly lucky but make no mistake...it's no coincidence that pucks keep on finding him. In my view that kind of vision/hockey IQ is almost impossible to learn or teach. You can refine or practice it, watch video etc but the truth is that even most NHL players will never get to Vanacker's level no matter how much work they put into this.

Does he have top line upside in the NHL? I don't know. What I do know is that he's pretty likely to play heavy minutes in the NHL just because he's so good in all areas of the game. His game is so mature already and he's thinking the game better and faster than pretty much everybody else so NHL coaches are gonna want him on the ice in all situations. I also think that Vanacker is likely to turn into a middle six winger at least. Even if he doesn't end up being a true stand alone topline winger he'll always be able to play and keep up with those top line forwards (like Bedard) and he's gonna log a ton of NHL minutes because of special teams alone. Based on this I had him as a mid 1st rounder. Blackhawks invested quite a bit to get this player. It was expensive but I think it could be worth it. I also don't think it's a coincidence the Blackhawks decided that this is a prospect they need to have. Because of Lardis they must know a lot about Vanacker, be it via scouting the Bulldogs extensively or even first hand information out of the locker room.
 
Last edited:

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,521
2,099
Vanacker ranked 17th N.A. skater on Central Scouting kist...

You expect 7-10 euros would go ahead ofvthat and push him dow..

Indeed 7 euroskatersctakenahead of Vanacker.. Therefore his range for consideration should have been no hogher than #24 if you were combining thec2 lists of position players that Central Scouting uses (N.A. and Euro lists for forwards and dmen).

Then you have the BobM cKenzie poll of 10 NHL scouts to formhis ranking...On that Vanacker ranked 28th..

So in the actual NHL affiliated scouting rankings He went within his expected range.

This means giving up 34 and 50 to movevup tonget him must be analyzed by the opportunity cost thise 2 picks we have up MIGHT have been used to get higher raked prospects in trades.

So I think #21 and#23 in the draft (L.A. and Toronto respectively moved their spots as I had predicted both wanted quantity having no 2nds before they traded.


So I think 34 and 50 should have gotten us of thise picks ina trade that woukd have been better than for just #28.

In fact Anaheim gave picks 31and 58 f to Toronto to get pick #23 ...where they took Stian Solberg who I would have draftedxat #19) ...MAybe Boisvert woukdvhave lastedcto #23 anyway !) ..

Montreal gave up picks 26+57+198 to get Michael Hage at #21..

We coukd have given #34+50+138 to land #21feomL A.

Maybe L A. Would have preferred thatvoackageviver what Montreal gave..if not we could have given #72 instead of133 ina better offer.

So I think overlap we should have had a #21or#23 given our draft capital multiples on offer..to get Only ac28 forc34 andc50 seems too little compared to what we shoukd have move on upto.

This coukdvhave beenactrenendouscforst round had we gooten #21or#23..

Boisvert rated#22 on the Mckenzie list...goidxchance still therexat #23..or if we had gotten#21 goid chance he still woukd be tgere.

So to me Solberg was the opportunity cost missed by KD failing to secure #21or#23 ..he coukdcshoukda got of thise picks..instead we settled for just#28.

I woukdcsayva starting 2nd pair LD who is axdefensive "pkay kilker" who is Uber physical and maybectge hardest hitter in thecdraft whovskatesctgat well and is that mobile who has a boomingvshot...who is achuman eraser that oppscforwards do not want to govagaibst..who woukdvhavevoushed KK with his defensive flaws over to his off sidexas aRD or to 3LD ...woukdvhave Ben a much much much better choice than another midfkecsix winger candidatevinVanacker.

Does not mean Vanacker is trash..justvthat landibgcSolberg woukdvhave been so much better.

In this regard I give KD an F for all his trade moves..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BHFAN92

MHO

Registered User
Sep 27, 2023
183
185
I don't hate it. This guy played with Lardis so I'm sure they did quite a bit of scouting on him and felt compelled to take him. Yes it cost them a 2nd round pick but between 1990 and 2018, I actually did the math, 22% of 2nd round picks never even play a game in the NHL and 56% of them have negligible impact. I almost view 2nds as assets to trade for a player or move up in a draft as they are worth more than the player you might actually get.

So if you're picking in the 2nd round, there's a 1% chance you get a player with impact of Duncan Keith, 2% you get Paul Stastny, 9% you get Brandon Saad, 10% chance you get Mike Commodore, 56% you get Bill Sweatt, and 22% Ludvig Rensfeldt.

So 90% of the time, the player turns into something you can sign off the street for $2M or less.
 

Kurtosis

GHG
May 26, 2010
25,483
4,234
The Village Within the City
I saw we got him on my way home and was really excited. He's a solid middle of the lineup player and a much better pick than Levy at 2 and Boisvert at 18. I wouldve been happier drafting him at 18 than Boisvert there to be honest.

I then found out we traded both 34 and 50 to get him. Holy hell did we get fleeced! 34 and 50 should get you to pick 22 atleast. God dang is that bad value. The difference between Vanacker and the guy at 34th oa is minimal. They are all in the same tier of players. 50th oa is a premium pick
50th is not a premium pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiHawks10

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
19,499
27,272
Chicago, IL
50th is not a premium pick.

Not even remotely a premium pick, and this is an extremely weak draft. The value people put on picks after the first round is amazing, really.

Probability-of-becoming-NHL-player-per-pick-top-60.png
 

Kurtosis

GHG
May 26, 2010
25,483
4,234
The Village Within the City

Not even remotely a premium pick, and this is an extremely weak draft. The value people put on picks after the first round is amazing, really.
Exactly, it’s astonishing how people overreact over later rounds picks to be honest
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad