“As you can see from here, the success rate drops massively from pick 25 to pick 31, and then it stays at a similar level for the entire second round. I’m not sure what’s the reason for that drop-off but it’s clear as day.”
2024 27th Overall Marek Vanacker
- Thread starter No Fun Shogun
- Start date
-
Pickem has been rebuilt and TWO new NHL Survivor Pools are now open- Registration closes on Saturday, March 22th - Click here to join.
HF Sportsbook has also been rebuilt and will have all March Madness events in hockey and basketball
TLEH
Pronounced T-Lay
That was the quote from the article. Yeah. I guess I did quote that but I really was more arguing that 27 and 34 are similar in value and that you should wait for the draft to come to you, and moving 50 for 7 spots is silly.
ChiHawks10
Registered User
If there's a specific player you want, and you have an idea that someone may take him off the board... then moving 50 to get back into the 1st round(even if just 7 spots) is the correct decision. As myself and others have said, 50 is not a premium pick. Odds are likely that #50 doesn't even make the NHL and stick. Hell, #50 isn't even a good 2nd round pick. It's like half-way through the 2nd round. Having pick #27 likely gives you somewhere around double(or more) the chance that he'll make the NHL. I think #50 is worth the cost of guaranteeing that you get your guy, personally.
Last edited:
It’s sillier to miss out on the guy you want in order to hang onto a pick that will most likely not be an nhl regular, and has almost no chance of being an impact player.
dj Mahoney
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 1,095
- 479
Especially considering that our prospects are overflowing .
TLEH
Pronounced T-Lay
hockeydoug
Registered User
- May 26, 2012
- 3,807
- 355
Agreed. I don't like the 200 or less games played models, so many gms give their high picks dozens or more games and plenty of extra chances based on draft position alone. They also don't prioritize acquisitions for those slots as highly as other organizational holes, they get favored opportunities and have less competition.
MSL wrote an interesting piece on how hard it was for even a player with so many elite attributes to get passed high draft picks in the player's tribune (I think that was the pub) several years ago.
hockeydoug
Registered User
- May 26, 2012
- 3,807
- 355
Yes,
And how do you NOT screw up evaluating and slotting a large pool of sub-elite prospects?
I'm on board with just 3 picks in the top 50, (could have gotten there better but whatever). Never been in a NHL draft scout or development meeting but if there are multiple redundant options, I think there is way too much room to horse trade on decisions instead of focusing on getting each one right.
hockeydoug
Registered User
- May 26, 2012
- 3,807
- 355
And keeping them. That's why I'm happier with only 3 picks in the top 50 this instead of the nuttiness of the previous two years.
Half of the very small number of impact players drafted 20-75oa (400gp, 4-6 years in top4/6 role for example) find that role with another team because the drafting team often can't develop or slot players correctly.
Sometimes it's timelines (Danault types) but often it's a problem with too many kids to slot like Hagel. Those are more extreme examples of success, but I think they at least clarify the point a bit.
belfour30
Blackhawks Fangirl
- Dec 14, 2019
- 1,276
- 1,132
Hawkaholic
Registered User
Really like this pick. Kid is a gamer and was one of Brantfords best players in the playoffs despite playing injured. Great vision, good speed that can be improved with better technique, decent shot, and has an edge to his game that could come out more if he gets stronger. Coach trusted him enough to play him on the PK in the playoffs as well.
Excited to watch him grow next year, he'll be one of our top prospects soon, rising the ranks like Lardis this past year.
Excited to watch him grow next year, he'll be one of our top prospects soon, rising the ranks like Lardis this past year.
So you are saying 34+50 is the same probability NHL player as 27?
The semantic of 50 to movevup 7 spitscfrom34 seems to me not the samecas considering 2 shots at getting tge samec1 nhl player by taking giyscat #34and 590 ....You have if not doubled your chances of hitting onan NHL pl,maybe at least uo the odds 1 5tines?
But this move up costing 34and50 hodrs KD's bigger error...inmy view..
Look I like Vanacker..we got homat #27 when his rating inthe Bob Mckenzie poll was #28...so hec expected value ...Has same chanceat hit or bust as most draftbpicks do in late first to 4ps range ..
Nothing is guaranteed..you may getcan nhl player but of no starvor of minor star quality unless luckyvand he does emerge to star..
Butcalk tgatvisxrelevant.
Hawksxfocused on Vanacker.. wantedvhom..thought hecwoukd not lastvto #34..so made the deal.
I can understand why they did that
However I still think there was better valuexatc#21and#23 ...both L.A. and Toronto respectively trade these picks.. L A. Got #26 +57+198 from Montreal for#21 and landed Michael Hage ..Toronto gave #23 to ANH for #41 and#58..andANH took the guy I wanted Stian Solberg..
CHICAGO could have bettered either offer and gotten either #21or#23...
We ended up making a deal to add #92..Coukd have done that earlier.
Surely 34+50+92"is better than 26+587 +198..such an offer could have gotten #21 from L.A.
Or is not 34+50 equal to #31and#58 ?.. add is a sweetener (92 or 138) if Toronto wanted more.
So we coukd had Solberg if only KD acted correctly instead of hisxI way Vaacker but not as high as #21or#23 idea.
Solberg #20on the Mckenzie list was I think the highest value and better positional value to go for and I woukdvhave taken homat #21but if we did nit getvthat pick from L A. Then I wouk.vhave made a greater offer than Anaheim did to get Solberg at #23.
I like Vanacker but hecwill not have the impact Solberg will as both a top notch shutdown dman and a physical fear barrier opposobgbRwibgs will cribgecatbpkayibgvagaibstvelse they end up crushed into the biards hit cleanly so they end up in hospital.You cannot find this very often.
JD shoukdvhave tried movingbuptob#21 or#23 ..hevhad the ammo..
Moving upto #27 ,to me was not goidcenough considering alk the draftcasetscwe had from 2ndvtoundvon to give better deals than either Montreal or Anaheim gaveup tomorrow to #21and#23 respectively .So whikevI have nothing agaibst Vanacker..I lijehim,tgevpintbiscI like Solbergva kit better as the proper piece to add to our puzzle trying to form a Cup contender in a fewc ears...
The semantic of 50 to movevup 7 spitscfrom34 seems to me not the samecas considering 2 shots at getting tge samec1 nhl player by taking giyscat #34and 590 ....You have if not doubled your chances of hitting onan NHL pl,maybe at least uo the odds 1 5tines?
But this move up costing 34and50 hodrs KD's bigger error...inmy view..
Look I like Vanacker..we got homat #27 when his rating inthe Bob Mckenzie poll was #28...so hec expected value ...Has same chanceat hit or bust as most draftbpicks do in late first to 4ps range ..
Nothing is guaranteed..you may getcan nhl player but of no starvor of minor star quality unless luckyvand he does emerge to star..
Butcalk tgatvisxrelevant.
Hawksxfocused on Vanacker.. wantedvhom..thought hecwoukd not lastvto #34..so made the deal.
I can understand why they did that
However I still think there was better valuexatc#21and#23 ...both L.A. and Toronto respectively trade these picks.. L A. Got #26 +57+198 from Montreal for#21 and landed Michael Hage ..Toronto gave #23 to ANH for #41 and#58..andANH took the guy I wanted Stian Solberg..
CHICAGO could have bettered either offer and gotten either #21or#23...
We ended up making a deal to add #92..Coukd have done that earlier.
Surely 34+50+92"is better than 26+587 +198..such an offer could have gotten #21 from L.A.
Or is not 34+50 equal to #31and#58 ?.. add is a sweetener (92 or 138) if Toronto wanted more.
So we coukd had Solberg if only KD acted correctly instead of hisxI way Vaacker but not as high as #21or#23 idea.
Solberg #20on the Mckenzie list was I think the highest value and better positional value to go for and I woukdvhave taken homat #21but if we did nit getvthat pick from L A. Then I wouk.vhave made a greater offer than Anaheim did to get Solberg at #23.
I like Vanacker but hecwill not have the impact Solberg will as both a top notch shutdown dman and a physical fear barrier opposobgbRwibgs will cribgecatbpkayibgvagaibstvelse they end up crushed into the biards hit cleanly so they end up in hospital.You cannot find this very often.
JD shoukdvhave tried movingbuptob#21 or#23 ..hevhad the ammo..
Moving upto #27 ,to me was not goidcenough considering alk the draftcasetscwe had from 2ndvtoundvon to give better deals than either Montreal or Anaheim gaveup tomorrow to #21and#23 respectively .So whikevI have nothing agaibst Vanacker..I lijehim,tgevpintbiscI like Solbergva kit better as the proper piece to add to our puzzle trying to form a Cup contender in a fewc ears...
bwana63
carter blanche
the more I learn about this kid, the better I feel about the Hawks moving up to take him
dj Mahoney
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 1,095
- 479
migi
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2015
- 4,418
- 2,917
LavalPhantom
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2014
- 446
- 494
Hopefully, but a more skilled Brandon Saad is a top 10 pick, not a fringe 1st rounder.
Sarava
Registered User
Kyle said the Hawks were in on those first 2 trade ups. They just didn't seal the deal. They eventually did with Carolina.
Kevin Musto
Hard for Bedard
- Feb 16, 2018
- 20,755
- 26,944
Kevin Musto
Hard for Bedard
- Feb 16, 2018
- 20,755
- 26,944
Castle8130
Registered User
- May 9, 2017
- 2,561
- 1,754
I'm absolutely shocked they had Vanacker and Bosivert in their top 18. Just watched the "Every Shift" episode and Kyle said he wants either Boisvert or Vanacker at 18th oa.
I think it's very possible Kyle had both of those guys even higher than 18
I think it's very possible Kyle had both of those guys even higher than 18
Kevin Musto
Hard for Bedard
- Feb 16, 2018
- 20,755
- 26,944
Vanacker isn't too surprising. I could see why someone would rank him top 20.
Boisvert is a real head scratcher.
clydesdale line
Connor BeJesus
- Jan 10, 2012
- 24,446
- 22,362
Kyle and his staff literally had Boisvert and Vanacker neck and neck. Kudos to them for selecting Boisvert first so they can trade up and grab their other guy. I'm a big Vanacker fan as most can tell when I liked the pick alot when it was announced.
the one thing I like about the guys they draft are the play with speed, and in general they are competitive. I know they pass on guys with more skill at times but in the playoffs you want guys going 110% every second and some of the guys with skill its not in there DNA. Im a fan of guys that play hard on 200 feet of ice not PP specialists.
