All purpose draft-gripe thread

[biturbo19]

Also, if we are throwing around theories about "meat and potatoes means, my feeling is it speaks to someone's complete game- not their nationality or meanness. We drafted a Russian after all for the first time in forever and I can attest to the fact they eat meat and potatoes in Russia.

Very much this.

I don't know why people automatically jumped to the "meat and potatoes" thing being about "nationality" or "size". Especially when we followed that up with a Russian kid in the 3rd round, and indications coming out of the Canucks camp that the "embargo" banning the drafting of Russians under Gillis, had been lifted under Benning.

For some reason, everyone assumed that the comment was about McCann vs Barbashev. The question was framed in such a vague way, about "the Russians" selected soon after...to me that screams of McCann vs Goldobin and Scherbak. And when it comes to those guys, McCann is far more "meat and potatoes", playing a substantially more developed two-way game, and with a harder edge to his play.

There were a ton of people around here clamoring for Barbashev @24, but that doesn't necessarily mean Benning (or other GMs) saw him as automatically the "obvious choice" there. Keep in mind, Barbashev was a 2nd round pick...a lot of other teams after us passed on him as well. It's entirely possible, even probable i'd say, that Benning answered that question in regards to McCann vs the two guys who actually were selected right in that range of picks around #24. I think people just read something into the comment that wasn't there, and spun it as rampant xenophobia and dislike of Russian players altogether or something.

I think Benning has made it pretty clear in acquiring the players he has, that the whole "meat and potatoes" thing is as much an attitude toward the game as it is about these other details.


In any event, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years. Some guys like Svechnikov or Provorov this year could be an interesting litmus test if he happens to be available whenever we end up selecting.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

It isn't 100% but my sense is that most kids post-draft don't grow any taller (they do put on weight). No doubt you can find spot examples that do but I'd need to see a more thorough assessment to believe it accounts for more than that. Besides, the top 20 scorers in the CHL generally aren't 17 year olds and are probably more 19 and 20 than 18 year olds.


Well I did acknowledge that Ehlers and Virtanen were not good cases to be impacted by this analysis, given both of them being close to the 6 foot cut-off. It was meant to be a more general assessment of the bias towards size in the NHL vs junior. I don't actually see much risk in Ehlers' height nor do I see much advantage in Virtanen's height, given that they are about 1 inch apart. Their weight and frame is a different matter.

So if Ehlers' height isn't an issue then why bring up the stats regarding the number of players below 6'0?

And regarding weight I showed in the Virtanen thread all the weights of top-10 forwards in their draft years from 2005-2008. Ehlers is currently at 176, here's all the players at a similar weight or less:

Backstrom: 183
Hodgson: 182
Crosby: 180
Stamkos: 178
Brassard: 175
Turris: 165
P. Kane: 162
Filatov: 159

The only true bust from that list was Filatov, who as well as being 159 i his draft year got fed up with his situation in the NHL and left to the KHL, he might very well be a decent NHLer if he had stayed. So I don't see why his weight is an issue based on historical precedent.

I don't know that I agree with just removing the 5'9 players since their prevalence in junior speaks to the fact that size is much less important in the CHL but much more important in the NHL. Stating that 5'9 is a 'floor' or 'minimum' doesn't mean that size stops being a factor beyond that level. It merely stops being an absolute (or near absolute barrier). I believe it still favours larger size beyond 5'9 however other factors start to come into play (absolute skill level, strength, etc). Below 5'9 very few players can make it even with elite skill levels (the odd exception of course exists).

Size is less important in the CHL than it is in the NHL, but only for players below that threshold(whether 5'9 or 5'10, the point is moot w/ regards to Ehlers).

Again I clearly stated that weight continues from CHL to NHL hence why I opted not to use it in my analysis. And in general most kids will have their NHL height in junior but not their NHL weight. This is my concern with Ehlers, and was even when I was pushing for him in Feb-March of this year (before I turned more in favour of Virtanen). The fact that he started at such a low weight (163) and has put on a lot of weight in a short period of time (+13 lbs) but is still well below NHL average (195-205) does make me question whether he can ever get to a level where he won't be easily outmuscled at the NHL level. Some players can be short and incredibly strong (Crosby) while others simply never gain enough strength to be as effective as their skills (Raymond). It certainly isn't a given that Ehlers won't get there, but it also isn't a given that he will. It's a legit question, just as you question Virtanen's production.

Putting on 13 pounds between ages 17-18 is hardly shocking especially for a professional athlete. I already showed above the players at a similar weight in their draft year and it doesn't seem like any red flags are present there.

If you ignore TOI completely, then yes Ehlers had a higher GPG. If you factor in TOI, which I did based on the extraskater.com estimates last year, then Virtanen actually had the higher GPG.

Goal scoring per TOI is not a valid stat to use when comparing players imho(even before factoring in that those are very rough estimates). Otherwise you could end up concluding that Bergeron was a better goal scorer than Ovechkin last year, which is clearly not the case. Especially when you are balancing out the lesser PPTOI/G without accounting for the fact that you're playing against weaker competition on the 2nd PP unit.

Not to mention the factor I mentioned before that fatigue plays a role as well, there's a reason why the Sedins/Kesler crashed and burned last year after being played 25 minutes per night, they would almost certainly have gotten more points over the entire season if played closer to 20 minutes.

Of course this is where we differ. You prioritize Ehlers puck skills and vision more than Virtanen's physical element, just like you prioritized Nichushkin's size and speed more than Horvat's defensive skills. All have an impact on the outcome of a game and it is hard to say if an extra 5 goals and 10 assists a year contribute more than being better at retrieving the puck on a forecheck or being able to battle around the net more effectively. At the end of the day, it will come down to the magnitude of the gaps between these players. You can't simply say Ehlers is better at x, y, and z while Virtanen is only better at x so take Ehlers. HOW much better each player is matters. How many more goals (if any) will Ehlers score is what counts, not merely that he may score more goals. And HOW much more effective Virtanen is at puck retrieval (if at all) matters more than simply being more effective. We don't know the magnitude yet because both of them have not applied their games at the NHL level.


This is not surprising given that we place different measures of value on different things. Fortunately we didn't draft Virtanen to be the 17 year old version of himself in the NHL so how they are now matters less than how they are trending. While it will probably be construed as 'spin', I would personally wait until Jake is performing at his 'best' level before making this comparison. The surgery and missing TC (both NHL and junior) along with the first dozen games of the season have him behind the 8-ball. But his play has been steadily improving (0.90 PPG, selected a star 3x in his first 11 games, 1.44 PPG, selected a star 5x in his last 9) and I believe it will continue to get better after the WJC. If he can be even close to Ehlers in PPG - say Virtanen at 1.5 and Ehlers at 2.0 - while getting lower TOI and playing a more physical style game then I will be satisfied (though I realize you may not).

Using this logic you could justify virtually any pick, based on the fact that "we don't know anything about them at the NHL level yet". Does Ehlers producing >50% more in junior translate to 15 more points at the NHL level? Would you take a 75 point Patrick Kane over a 60 point Milan Lucic? These are all speculative, and I prefer to compare their actual current attributes then to try and assume what each player will be at the NHL level.

Based on what I've seen, the only aspect in which Virtanen is superior than Ehlers is physicality. I do not think it is good practice to take a player whose sole advantage is physicality(again, based on my own opinion), and I haven't seen anything that supports Virtanen being inherently better or safer due to the difference in size.

 

[Zarpan]

One complicating factor is that we don't have accurate information on how much most players actually weighed at draft day. I have no idea whether Ehlers was actually 162 pounds or 176 pounds or anywhere in between. There doesn't appear to be an official combine weight for him that I can see.

It happens a lot in other sports like the NFL or NBA that prospect weights (and heights) at the combine are often quite a bit different that what is listed on their team and other sites prior to the combine.

 

[Zarpan]

I would definitely say that smaller players have a tougher time fully translating their offence to the NHL.

Take a look at Patrick Kane. He's definitely been very successful, but he also put up 35% more PPG than Taylor Hall in juniors, while their NHL production has been similar.

With a bigger player like Perry, it took until his draft+1 year before he got close to Hall's draft year, and Perry's draft +2 year was still less productive than Kane's draft year.

All of those are OHL wingers too, with Perry and Kane coming from the same team and coach.

Obviously there are other factors too, but if you're a 6'3" 210 pound player who is a PPG player in juniors, you'll probably end up putting up better numbers in the NHL than 1.3 PPG player in juniors who is 5'10" and 175 pounds. Not really sure what the differential is, but I'm pretty sure there is one.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I would definitely say that smaller players have a tougher time fully translating their offence to the NHL.

Take a look at Patrick Kane. He's definitely been very successful, but he also put up 35% more PPG than Taylor Hall in juniors, while their NHL production has been similar.

With a bigger player like Perry, it took until his draft+1 year before he got close to Hall's draft year, and Perry's draft +2 year was still less productive than Kane's draft year.

All of those are OHL wingers too, with Perry and Kane coming from the same team and coach.

Obviously there are other factors too, but if you're a 6'3" 210 pound player who is a PPG player in juniors, you'll probably end up putting up better numbers in the NHL than 1.3 PPG player in juniors who is 5'10" and 175 pounds. Not really sure what the differential is, but I'm pretty sure there is one.

Sure you have Kane with anomalously high point production, but you also have someone like Stamkos who produced at a lower PPG than Hall but is outscoring him at the NHL level, as well as Evander Kane outscoring Matt Duchene in their draft year as well.

Perry and Kane are apples and oranges, given that Perry was a relatively late bloomer and was never seen to be close to the level of Kane in his draft year, it was only later that his development took off.

Taking random examples of players that fit a certain narrative isn't necessarily proof to whatever point is being made.

 

[CanaFan]

I would definitely say that smaller players have a tougher time fully translating their offence to the NHL.

Take a look at Patrick Kane. He's definitely been very successful, but he also put up 35% more PPG than Taylor Hall in juniors, while their NHL production has been similar.

With a bigger player like Perry, it took until his draft+1 year before he got close to Hall's draft year, and Perry's draft +2 year was still less productive than Kane's draft year.

All of those are OHL wingers too, with Perry and Kane coming from the same team and coach.

Obviously there are other factors too, but if you're a 6'3" 210 pound player who is a PPG player in juniors, you'll probably end up putting up better numbers in the NHL than 1.3 PPG player in juniors who is 5'10" and 175 pounds. Not really sure what the differential is, but I'm pretty sure there is one.

I was thinking about this approach as well and may dig into it later tonight. Will also follow up to VKW's post, just don't have time atm.

 

[Phenomenon13]

I would definitely say that smaller players have a tougher time fully translating their offence to the NHL.

Take a look at Patrick Kane. He's definitely been very successful, but he also put up 35% more PPG than Taylor Hall in juniors, while their NHL production has been similar.

With a bigger player like Perry, it took until his draft+1 year before he got close to Hall's draft year, and Perry's draft +2 year was still less productive than Kane's draft year.

All of those are OHL wingers too, with Perry and Kane coming from the same team and coach.

Obviously there are other factors too, but if you're a 6'3" 210 pound player who is a PPG player in juniors, you'll probably end up putting up better numbers in the NHL than 1.3 PPG player in juniors who is 5'10" and 175 pounds. Not really sure what the differential is, but I'm pretty sure there is one.

Hall played on one of the most dominant junior teams in recent history. There were so many first round talents.

An argument can be made that a bigger player can dominate the chl easier as the size of players at that level are typically smaller. Bigger players may have a hard time doing the same over powering moves in the big leagues therefore not producing as much.


To be honest this varies from individual to individual

 

[AstrophysicalJet]

The point wasn't at all about playing second class competition. It's about deep teams that roll for 3 lines for offense and Halifax which clearly doesn't have the depth to do that so they play their top guys a lot.

The idea that being on a loaded team vs a poor team with no scoring depth somehow makes one more impressive is where my gripe is.

Good for Ehlers for scoring 2/3 of his teams goals. It's impressive. Does it make him an auto NHL star? Nope, neither does scoring 25% of your teams goals.

I don't care about PPG all that much, it's about skillset and projection. Not every guy who torches the CHL makes the NHL let alone becomes a star. Impressive statistics in the CHL are nice, but they don't make or break your ability to become a successful nhl player.

Yours and VKW's point almost all last season was look at the points, kids gonna be a star. I tempered those. Lots of guys score in the CHL. Project the skill sets not the ppg average in the CHL.

It's why Gabe Landeskog's get drafted 2nd overall over Sean Couturier's and Ryan Strome's. You're making a projection. Of course production helps, but you miss out on really good nhl players by just taking the CHLer with the best PPG average.

I understand what you are trying to say, I just find it a bit double standard or contradicting, I remember you arguing the opposite Pre draft, and arguing for players that were on supposedly worse teams with that exact argument.

I don't recall saying Ehlers Was a sure thing, I dont even recall saying Ehlers over Virtanen, most of our discussions were on the Ehlers vs. Nylander subject, where i preferred Ehlers and still do. I like JV and for now have no problem with the pick.

And you are using hyperbole when saying at least my point all last season Was look at his point totals, I recall me pointing to several other elements, like his skillset and underrated two-Way play but as I mentioned a few times during those discussions, those points were ignored or dismissed with no counter argument.

Me liking Ehlers had very little to do With his pointproduction, I followed him quite a bit last season, and really liked what he brought every night, and other than me liking Ehlers more than Nylander, I Was also trying to debunk the annoying and wrong assesment by, many who never watched him, that he was riding Drouins coattails, which you also insinuated.

Just to confirm, I in no way am saying that Ehlers impressive stats Will translate to the NHL, and for me this is not about Ehlers vs. JV, as I am quite contempt with the pick.

I am just trying to understand where you stand on Ehlers, because right now, to me it just sounds like you dont very much like the kid, and will go far to argue with the people who do.

 

[Verviticus]

I'm happy we took Virtanen over Ehlers or Nylander. I don't see why people are complaining about this.

if you had phrased that as a question you would have provided a pretty good answer to your own question before you asked it

 

[Bleach Clean]

@Biturbo19: The meat and potatoes comment followed a question referencing Russian players. That's why it was taken as xenophobic. It isn't really that hard to figure out why people took it that way. The question referenced the subject matter.

I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to come off as idiotic as he seemed with that comment, it was a slip, but the reference material and subsequent answer is there.

Yes, he chose a Russian later. Hell, Kokhlachev was his pick too. It still doesn't exlude his unthinking response at the time. In any event, the point was that size wasn't the subject matter in the question or answer. Nationality at least was a part of the question.

 

[biturbo19]

@Biturbo19: The meat and potatoes comment followed a question referencing Russian players. That's why it was taken as xenophobic. It isn't really that hard to figure out why people took it that way. The question referenced the subject matter.

I'm pretty sure he didn't intend to come off as idiotic as he seemed with that comment, it was a slip, but the reference material and subsequent answer is there.

Yes, he chose a Russian later. Hell, Kokhlachev was his pick too. It still doesn't exlude his unthinking response at the time. In any event, the point was that size wasn't the subject matter in the question or answer. Nationality at least was a part of the question.

It wasn't a comment referencing all Russian players though. That's why i don't get why people immediately jumped to this bizarre conclusion that Benning hates Russians (which was promptly proven completely false with the Russian pick in the 3rd round). And we've obviously had plenty of hints to the contrary with regards to his previous work and "pet projects".

It was a comment about specific Russian players selected just after McCann...Scherbak and Goldobin. Those were the two Russians selected in the neighbourhood of McCann. But people are quick to jump on the comment and construe it as something else because we didn't take Barbashev @24.

People are quick to take the response out of context, just latching on to the "meat and potatoes" cliche and what that means to them with the preconceived notion that Barbashev was somehow the "obvious" pick...without actually considering the question being asked. The reality is...Barbashev was not a "consensus #24 pick" in the reality of the NHL draft. He was a #33 pick. When a guy like Benning has just drafted a player (McCann) @ #24 and a few more picks go by as he ambles on up to the press podium to answer some questions...you ask him if he "considered the Russians available"...that's going to be in reference to the guys who had just been selected, not a kid who was as yet still undrafted.

It's a case of people being so overconfident in their own "projections" of prospects, that they don't even consider the framework and scenario of the question being asked of Benning...they just want to turn it into some sort of "omg he didn't draft my fav Russian guy" crusade where Benning is a villain who hates all Russians. And it's super goofy.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It wasn't a comment referencing all Russian players though...

Full exclusivity doesn't matter. He didn't need to say "all", or the question didn't have to include "all", for it to be construed as a xenophobic comment. Simply tying the passed over "Russians" (nationality) to an undesirable playstyle (not meat and potatoes) is enough. The connection should have never been made.

It was a comment about specific Russian players selected just after McCann...Scherbak and Goldobin. Those were the two Russians selected in the neighbourhood of McCann.

"considered the Russians available"...that's going to be in reference to the guys who had just been selected, not a kid who was as yet still undrafted.

"Russians available" refers to "Russians available". In that range, this referenced Scherbak, Goldobin and Barbashev. All could have been readily justifiable at #24. But that's just a guess. Neither one of us truly know. But where you _choose_ to selectively limit the field by round selection, I prefer to include players that were ranked in that range and above for the better part of the year. Those players should have been in consideration for that pick.

Anyways, long story short, this is about disassociating that comment with a predilection to bigger players -- which was the focus of an earlier comment.

 

[thefeebster]

It's a case of people being so overconfident in their own "projections" of prospects, that they don't even consider the framework and scenario of the question being asked of Benning...they just want to turn it into some sort of "omg he didn't draft my fav Russian guy" crusade where Benning is a villain who hates all Russians. And it's super goofy.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Overconfidence? Who is projecting on to whom now?

BC explains it well in how the question framework made the comment have xenophobic tinge but I also took it as more of a description of a playing style that could be categorized as a physical and hardworking kind of game.

With this style description and using it to compare the Russian players available to McCann, the only plausible option, in terms of the statement being correct, would have been Goldobin, as Barbashev and Scherbak play as hard aka "meat and potatoes", if not harder aka more "meat and potatoes" than McCann did or does.

IMO and in my viewings this season, McCann still plays closer to a finesse than brute or edgy game.

 

[Verviticus]

yeah. if he was comparing to an actual hard player it wouldn't be as ridiculous but McCann is not a meat and potatoes guy other than that he's Canadian. it was a stupid thing to say

that said, he talks with one foot firmly in his mouth at all times so it's relatively not as bad as it sounded at the time.

drafting: Canucks can't do it. they should probably stop trying

 

[Jay Cee]

Jim Benning: xenophobic against Russians, except when he is drafting them

 

[Vankiller Whale]

I'm honestly not even convinced he realized what an ass he made of himself and asked our Russian scout who the biggest/toughest Russian player available was so that he could cover his error, even though he wouldn't have dreamed of taking him before the backlash on the comment.

Maybe I'm being too harsh in presuming that, but...

 

[Jay Cee]

That doesn't even seem remotely plausible.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

It would be interesting to compare the canucks' actual drafting over the last 10-15 years to what their record would have looked like if they had simply taken the B.P.A. according to the media's prospect rankings. I expect the latter would be a better group of players.

 

[Nucker101]

Wish we drafted Kyle Beach...good ole B.C. boy from the dub!

 

[Alan Jackson]

It would be interesting to compare the canucks' actual drafting over the last 10-15 years to what their record would have looked like if they had simply taken the B.P.A. according to the media's prospect rankings. I expect the latter would be a better group of players.

That would only be effective if you did that for every team. Every single NHL team has hits and misses. Some teams draft better than others, but I think there's a lot more dumb luck involved than we care to admit.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I'm honestly not even convinced he realized what an ass he made of himself and asked our Russian scout who the biggest/toughest Russian player available was so that he could cover his error, even though he wouldn't have dreamed of taking him before the backlash on the comment.

Maybe I'm being too harsh in presuming that, but...

Wut.

This is grasping at straws.

 

[PRNuck]

Wut.

This is grasping at straws.

Woah. Totally thought you had a Frodo avatar for a sec.

 

[IDJOTBOY]

I'm honestly not even convinced he realized what an ass he made of himself and asked our Russian scout who the biggest/toughest Russian player available was so that he could cover his error, even though he wouldn't have dreamed of taking him before the backlash on the comment.

Maybe I'm being too harsh in presuming that, but...

Do you know people inside the organization that can tell you something like this? I'm not sure how anyone can assume something like this based on nothing, unless you're just speculating

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Do you know people inside the organization that can tell you something like this? I'm not sure how anyone can assume something like this based on nothing, unless you're just speculating

I think it was pretty clear it was just speculation.

But I don't see any real way to reconcile his actions.

He said he took Jared McCann because of "meat and potatoes" over the Russians even though the two most highly ranked Russians pre-draft are if anything moreso than McCann is in everything except nationality. That night the media and everyone made a pretty big deal over the quote and it's implications, but then the next day Benning takes a Russian out of left field with our next pick, who also happens to be the biggest player in the draft. It seems like too much to just call it a coincidence for me, although obviously I have nothing to support that other than speculation.

 

[Free Edler]

Wut.

This is grasping at straws.

No kidding, especially given the fact that the Canucks scouts were the ones doing most of the heavy lifting at the draft, not Benning, who had worked for the team for about a month. But this thread was always going to be a VKW vs. The World title bout anyway.