All purpose draft-gripe thread

[arttk]

And there was a lotttt of teams who made the same mistake with Saad.

Well Chicago passed on him 3 times?

 

[biturbo19]

Well Chicago passed on him 3 times?

Yeah. Even the team that eventually "stole" Saad, made that mistake a few times before they got it right.

 

[y2kcanucks]

And there was a lotttt of teams who made the same mistake with Saad.

Does Saad become Saad if he isn't playing with Toews and Kane though?

 

[Ho Borvat]

Does Saad become Saad if he isn't playing with Toews and Kane though?

I donno, but I would bet he still turns out better than Jensen did.

 

[PM]

Does Saad become Saad if he isn't playing with Toews and Kane though?

I always wonder about this. Our fanbase seems to think that a player has to be fully proven before getting a chance while the best development teams like to take risks by inserting their prospects earlier in positions to succeed. Maybe down the road he could turn out to be the same player but I'm sure playing with Toews and Kane is better for his progression than playing with O'Reilly and Grenier.

 

[biturbo19]

I always wonder about this. Our fanbase seems to think that a player has to be fully proven before getting a chance while the best development teams like to take risks by inserting their prospects earlier in positions to succeed. Maybe down the road he could turn out to be the same player but I'm sure playing with Toews and Kane is better for his progression than playing with O'Reilly and Grenier.

I think there's some validity to that. Playing with the guys Saad started out with in Chicago certainly didn't seem to hurt his development at all. I'm inclined to think it was probably actually immensely beneficial for him. Though obviously the "man child" was very physically ready for the NHL and top competition playing with top players comes with, at a very young age. That doesn't apply to every prospect.

We do have our own version of "playing with Toews and Kane" though, in the Sedins...but they are typically used with a more "veteran" player trying to maximize the production it seems...and they're also kind of a weird niche duo to play with stylistically, which complicates things.

But i've often wondered the same sort of thing. Would Saad in Vancouver have blossomed into what he is today? Or at least, would he have done so in such a rapid fashion? I'm kind of skeptical.

Even more skeptical about today, under Willie "get them darn kids off my lawn...errr...team!" Desjardins behind the bench. Seeing what sort of expanded role Horvat gets next season, and what sort of opportunities/role/usage Virtanen sees when he eventually sticks will be an interesting litmus test for that. Somehow i'm skeptical it's going to be as lenient and flexible as Quenneville was with Saad (though it's also worth noting that salary cap pressures probably played into this quite a bit as well).

 

[y2kcanucks]

I think there's some validity to that. Playing with the guys Saad started out with in Chicago certainly didn't seem to hurt his development at all. I'm inclined to think it was probably actually immensely beneficial for him. Though obviously the "man child" was very physically ready for the NHL and top competition playing with top players comes with, at a very young age. That doesn't apply to every prospect.

We do have our own version of "playing with Toews and Kane" though, in the Sedins...but they are typically used with a more "veteran" player trying to maximize the production it seems...and they're also kind of a weird niche duo to play with stylistically, which complicates things.

But i've often wondered the same sort of thing. Would Saad in Vancouver have blossomed into what he is today? Or at least, would he have done so in such a rapid fashion? I'm kind of skeptical.

Even more skeptical about today, under Willie "get them darn kids off my lawn...errr...team!" Desjardins behind the bench. Seeing what sort of expanded role Horvat gets next season, and what sort of opportunities/role/usage Virtanen sees when he eventually sticks will be an interesting litmus test for that. Somehow i'm skeptical it's going to be as lenient and flexible as Quenneville was with Saad (though it's also worth noting that salary cap pressures probably played into this quite a bit as well).

Eh not really. The Sedins play a certain style where all they do is cycle the puck. It takes a certain type of player to play with them, as we've seen. Players who like to skate fast and generate chances off the rush wouldn't succeed with them.

 

[biturbo19]

Eh not really. The Sedins play a certain style where all they do is cycle the puck. It takes a certain type of player to play with them, as we've seen. Players who like to skate fast and generate chances off the rush wouldn't succeed with them.

Yes. Like i added as a caveat later in that very same sentence...

 

[y2kcanucks]

Yes. Like i added as a caveat later in that very same sentence...

This is why I should read things through before replying.

 

[arsmaster*]

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/07/at-the-nhl-draft-table-with-mark-yannetti-kings-director-of-scouting/

I don't know where to put this article but it's an interesting read. Drafting philosophy is covered and factors beyond talent that are weighed.

It's a 4 part article and the 2nd part interested me. It discusses the drafting philosophy behind their first pick this year, Erik Cernak.

 

[Dissonance]

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/07/at-the-nhl-draft-table-with-mark-yannetti-kings-director-of-scouting/

I don't know where to put this article but it's an interesting read. Drafting philosophy is covered and factors beyond talent that are weighed.

It's a 4 part article and the 2nd part interested me. It discusses the drafting philosophy behind their first pick this year, Erik Cernak.

Great interview. Who knows if he's right about Cernak, but it's fascinating to hear how Yannetti tries to stay a step ahead of everyone else, and his drafting record since taking over in 2007 obviously speaks for itself. Wish we had someone like that.

 

[biturbo19]

http://mayorsmanor.com/2015/07/at-the-nhl-draft-table-with-mark-yannetti-kings-director-of-scouting/

I don't know where to put this article but it's an interesting read. Drafting philosophy is covered and factors beyond talent that are weighed.

It's a 4 part article and the 2nd part interested me. It discusses the drafting philosophy behind their first pick this year, Erik Cernak.

Great read. Really interesting stuff.

This little bit in particular really strikes me...

“I read all the scouting reports ahead of time just like everybody else,†Yannetti began. “I look at Red Line Report, Central Scouting, ISS, Bob McKenzie and Craig Button. Whether or not I agree with them, whether or not I think they have merit, any time you read something, it can help you. It’s sort of like conversations with Dean [Lombardi] sometimes. Even when we don’t see eye to eye on something, I still come away and adapt my way of thinking. I have weighed a different way of thinking.â€

Really valuable sentiment there i think.


Also particularly interesting to hear his breaking down thoughts on development timelines basically, and how that relates to drafting. It's one of many things i think the Canucks drafting has really struggled with over the last decade really. Ending up with these logjams of similar guys all hitting critical development/contract points at the same time. Think that shines a bit of light on the same sort of thought process as the whole McNally mess this summer...or at least in drafting, trying to avoid that sort of situation with half a dozen "rookie Pro" defencemen all hitting that point at the same time, as best as possible/projectable. Development is so important for a lot of "project" picks in particular...you've really gotta have stratification in your timelines by position, to have those well-suited opportunities opening up at the right times to take the next step.

Also pretty interesting to hear him talk about the idea of having a "BPA" and either taking them...or potentially not wanting to take them, and moving back instead. The notion of looking at a "BPA" and deciding to take a pass basically. Very stark departure from the "run down the consensus list and take the top guy" philosophy that seems highly pervasive 'round these parts. As does the idea he espouses there, of basically "targeting" specific players that you really want at specific areas of the draft, and not being afraid to take them a bit earlier than you think they might go - making sure you get "your guy".


Pretty curious to read that Bittner was apparently a real "target" for the Kings too. I know there were a lot of people here, including many who watched an awful lot of him, who really didn't like him much at all.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think they were talking Bittner in the 40's though not 23 like our pick.

I'm interested to read the next two segments. The russian factor with dergachyev should be interesting.

 

[biturbo19]

I think they were talking Bittner in the 40's though not 23 like our pick.

I'm interested to read the next two segments. The russian factor with dergachyev should be interesting.

Yeah. Definitely sounds like they were expecting him (or one of their other couple "targets" including Cernak) to be there at their 43rd pick.

More just interesting in that he's a guy Yannetti coughed out as a prospect they were seemingly particularly interested in.


Dergachyov is such an interesting case, as he's imo a lot closer to "NHL Ready" than you typically find in the 3rd round. But there's also that Russian factor...and then the other side of it, i'm curious to see if the Kings knew ahead of time about the potential for him coming over to play with Shawinigan. A lot of interesting factors with him.

 

[arsmaster*]

Yeah. Definitely sounds like they were expecting him (or one of their other couple "targets" including Cernak) to be there at their 43rd pick.

More just interesting in that he's a guy Yannetti coughed out as a prospect they were seemingly particularly interested in.


Dergachyov is such an interesting case, as he's imo a lot closer to "NHL Ready" than you typically find in the 3rd round. But there's also that Russian factor...and then the other side of it, i'm curious to see if the Kings knew ahead of time about the potential for him coming over to play with Shawinigan. A lot of interesting factors with him.

He is a bit weird too because he's more of a defensive 3C type upside too. But like you said maybe they see him being closer to being a player and a "high floor" type projection was BPA there.

I love that part of the game and any sort of insight I enjoy.

Bittner tidbit is cool and not all that surprising.

 

[biturbo19]

He is a bit weird too because he's more of a defensive 3C type upside too. But like you said maybe they see him being closer to being a player and a "high floor" type projection was BPA there.

I love that part of the game and any sort of insight I enjoy.

Bittner tidbit is cool and not all that surprising.

Indeed. Has the look of a real "high floor" type pick, and on that more accelerated timeline than you'd expect from most 3rd round picks. Things that i really liked as a fit for the Canucks in the draft, as a really solid "on base" potential. Hard to see him not finding a role as at least a huge crash&bang 4th line winger at worst in the NHL, with that upside as a 3rd liner, and at the top end...probably an "elite 3rd line checking center".

BUT...along with that, comes the Russian factor. That consideration where you have to wonder if he's a guy who is going to be thrilled to stick around banging bodies as a 4th line grinder for example, if that's all he really amounts to at the NHL level...when he'd probably have opportunities to head back home to Russia and play something more of a "scoring role".

That's where your scouting has to come up with a really strong read on the intentions and mindset of these Russian players.

 

[Luongos Knob]

Brad ference over Marian Hossa in 1997... smmfh

Antoski over Tkachuk, Brodeur... omg

 

[ugghhh]

Indeed. Has the look of a real "high floor" type pick, and on that more accelerated timeline than you'd expect from most 3rd round picks. Things that i really liked as a fit for the Canucks in the draft, as a really solid "on base" potential. Hard to see him not finding a role as at least a huge crash&bang 4th line winger at worst in the NHL, with that upside as a 3rd liner, and at the top end...probably an "elite 3rd line checking center".

BUT...along with that, comes the Russian factor. That consideration where you have to wonder if he's a guy who is going to be thrilled to stick around banging bodies as a 4th line grinder for example, if that's all he really amounts to at the NHL level...when he'd probably have opportunities to head back home to Russia and play something more of a "scoring role".

That's where your scouting has to come up with a really strong read on the intentions and mindset of these Russian players.

I think Dergyachov could develop a decent scoring touch. He has the tools in place -- maybe not at an elite level, but with his size and skating, he doesn't need the best skills to get production. 6'4, 225lbs, with that kind of skating and physicality takes you a long way in the NHL. It's rare for a player of that size to have great hands/scoring at that age -- I expect he'll get much better with age.

Also, interesting to see that Loik Leveille is listed as 5'9 (and 228 lbs) on the oilers camp roster sheet.
Not sure how accurate that is, but that would explain why he wasn't drafted.

 

[me2]

I think Dergyachov could develop a decent scoring touch. He has the tools in place -- maybe not at an elite level, but with his size and skating, he doesn't need the best skills to get production. 6'4, 225lbs, with that kind of skating and physicality takes you a long way in the NHL. It's rare for a player of that size to have great hands/scoring at that age -- I expect he'll get much better with age.

Also, interesting to see that Loik Leveille is listed as 5'9 (and 228 lbs) on the oilers camp roster sheet.
Not sure how accurate that is, but that would explain why he wasn't drafted.

He's 6'0 220 on Elite prospects and the 6'0 223 on the NHL draft web site. sounds a lot more reasonable. That'd be Horvat-like brick type build.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Great read. Really interesting stuff.

This little bit in particular really strikes me...



Really valuable sentiment there i think.


Also particularly interesting to hear his breaking down thoughts on development timelines basically, and how that relates to drafting. It's one of many things i think the Canucks drafting has really struggled with over the last decade really. Ending up with these logjams of similar guys all hitting critical development/contract points at the same time. Think that shines a bit of light on the same sort of thought process as the whole McNally mess this summer...or at least in drafting, trying to avoid that sort of situation with half a dozen "rookie Pro" defencemen all hitting that point at the same time, as best as possible/projectable. Development is so important for a lot of "project" picks in particular...you've really gotta have stratification in your timelines by position, to have those well-suited opportunities opening up at the right times to take the next step.

.

" We’ve never gone into a Draft saying ‘We have to get OHL guys,’ or ‘ We have to get WHL guys.’ Or even, ‘You know what; we have a lot of junior guys we have to get.’ The only time it ever comes into play – and this is rare, but it has happened – in terms of contracts and age distribution."

Considering it was part of the interview where he talks about never drafting for positional need ever again, after having done that and been burned in the past, I think we should take the timeline stuff with a grain of salt. I bolded the above to point out that he's saying it wouldn't happen to be a consideration often.

The whole point is to draft the bpa in every situation. If you end up with a bunch of solid prospects ready to go pro at the same time so be it. It beats the **** out of drafting guys who are preparing for a career in marketing 3 years after the draft.

I mean what can we really take out of the McNally mess as you call it. I'm sure he didn't look at all the young D we have turning pro next year and think to himself "damn I can't compete with those guys". Our current logjam includes a bunch of guys who may not now, or ever, even be AHL level d-men. If it was such a big problem why'd we even sign a mediocre prospect like Sautner just a few months ago?

 

[me2]

Also particularly interesting to hear his breaking down thoughts on development timelines basically, and how that relates to drafting. It's one of many things i think the Canucks drafting has really struggled with over the last decade really. Ending up with these logjams of similar guys all hitting critical development/contract points at the same time. Think that shines a bit of light on the same sort of thought process as the whole McNally mess this summer...or at least in drafting, trying to avoid that sort of situation with half a dozen "rookie Pro" defencemen all hitting that point at the same time, as best as possible/projectable. Development is so important for a lot of "project" picks in particular...you've really gotta have stratification in your timelines by position, to have those well-suited opportunities opening up at the right times to take the next step.

I agree with the sentiment about mixing the draft up, you don't want to draft 6 LH D and then try and find spots for them all at the same time. Mixing up euros and CHL and college to spread out the impact/age range of AHLers, seems normal.

I don't know if I agree with that being a problem for the Canucks. I've never felt the organisation was overloaded and prospects were suffering or they had a bad mix, if anything we've been lacking depth and quality, usually everywhere. As for McNally I don't see the issue there. Having older college guys stepping into the AHL gives you more mature talent that is still waivers exempt, probably a better bet for a call up than a 20yo 7th rounder, or some 19/20yo FA. At the end of the day the simplest solution is Benning just doesn't like McNally.

Also pretty interesting to hear him talk about the idea of having a "BPA" and either taking them...or potentially not wanting to take them, and moving back instead. The notion of looking at a "BPA" and deciding to take a pass basically. Very stark departure from the "run down the consensus list and take the top guy" philosophy that seems highly pervasive 'round these parts. As does the idea he espouses there, of basically "targeting" specific players that you really want at specific areas of the draft, and not being afraid to take them a bit earlier than you think they might go - making sure you get "your guy".

Trading down for more picks, lots of talk about that around here. If the guy you want will be there later trade down, if you are not happy with the quality of the group around where you are picking trade down.

 

[Addison Rae]

Of course, which is why you should question how your evaluating these assets:

24th = 24th
Perrault = Sbisa (roughly)
10th >> Bonino

That offer was likely never on the table or *even* Benning (since we assume he's an idiot around here) jumps at that. And why would it be? Anaheim knew they were the only destination for Kesler. Murray could be reasonably confident that his offer of scraps would be enough as Benning would either have to wait for Kesler to relent (which would have caused the 2014 picks to expire) or accept the deal as it was. Knowing Benning was a new GM with a mandate to repair the damage of a **** season, Murray had no reason to ever put the 10th pick in play. Hell, given Kesler's age, contract length (2 yrs to UFA), and recent injuries, he probably barely fetches the 10 alone even if there were more teams involved. That's a valuable pick and teams aren't going to move it unless absolutely necessary. The physics of the Kesler situation made it definitely not necessary.

Bonino was going off a year where he was on pace for over 50 points and gelled excellently with Getzlaf and Perry, he was the teams third best forward and was signed to an excellent cap hit. I'm not quite sure that Bonino and the 10th were that far off in value for Anaheim for a team going for the cup in Anaheim. 24 + Bonino absolutely gets you the 10th, zero questions asked imo. 10th + Perrault is an excellent return.

 

[arsmaster*]

Bonino was going off a year where he was on pace for over 50 points and gelled excellently with Getzlaf and Perry, he was the teams third best forward and was signed to an excellent cap hit. I'm not quite sure that Bonino and the 10th were that far off in value for Anaheim for a team going for the cup in Anaheim. 24 + Bonino absolutely gets you the 10th, zero questions asked imo. 10th + Perrault is an excellent return.

Perrault was a UFA.

No sane GM trades for him.

You just get a better futures deal and sign a Bonino replacement in FA.

The deal should have been heavily swayed to futures, but it wasn't...but this isn't really a draft gripe.

 

[Scurr]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Addison Rae]

Perrault was a UFA.

No sane GM trades for him.

You just get a better futures deal and sign a Bonino replacement in FA.

The deal should have been heavily swayed to futures, but it wasn't...but this isn't really a draft gripe.

Wasn't Perrault just an unqualified RFA?