Prospect Info: Jonathan Lekkerimaki, #15 Overall, 2022 NHL Draft

[pitseleh]

Small skill wingers tend to be the biggest droppers in the draft, and if you look at the draft a certain way you're going to be able to convince yourself that a small skill winger is the 'BPA' every time you come up with a high pick. And if you do that every time each pick might be fine in a vacuum but in the bigger picture you're going to create a mess.

It seems to me that is the result of not properly weighting the evaluation of the BPA, not a problem with BPA as a strategy. If centres and defencemen are in fact more important and harder to acquire, lists should be weighted accordingly. Then if after that things are close between two players, picking for need is fine.

The public scouting resources are probably guilty of failing to do that more than teams are.

For Lekkerimaki, everything turns on the Canucks’ valuation of him as a top-5 pick. Between getting a top-5 ranked winger or a top-15 to 20ish centre or defenceman, it is hard to imagine any positional adjustment would justify the latter. But if Lekkerimaki should have been rated in the 10-15 range, then they probably should have gone with the centre or defenceman.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Agreed. I'd hate to miss out on another Tkachuk or pastrnak by being focused too much on position. I think in the long run, it's a better strategy

Yeah, Benning wanted to build the team through the middle and on D (most GM's do)....They are the most valuable positions in the draft.....but if the quality isnt available...you take BPA imo.

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

Agreed with this whole post. It's nothing against Lekkerimaki. He's obviously a very good prospect.

By the time we get to the 2023 draft it will be 5 years since the Canucks have taken a player at either of the most important, highest value positions of C and D.

Like you say, there are certain (unusual) situations where a massive scouting failure causes a Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers or a Bourdon over Kopitar situation to happen. But these are very rare.

End result is that we're in a situation where the existing NHL team is extremely thin on C and D and the system has literally nothing ... and it's a massive problem we need to fix and we're going to pay through the teeth to do it.

I say this a lot, but managing an NHL team isn't playing videogames. There are things you need to balance.

Small skill wingers tend to be the biggest droppers in the draft, and if you look at the draft a certain way you're going to be able to convince yourself that a small skill winger is the 'BPA' every time you come up with a high pick. And if you do that every time each pick might be fine in a vacuum but in the bigger picture you're going to create a mess.

If I recall what you said earlier, your pick for us in the first round was Firkus right? If possible, trading back to get him?

 

[MS]

It seems to me that is the result of not properly weighting the evaluation of the BPA, not a problem with BPA as a strategy. If centres and defencemen are in fact more important and harder to acquire, lists should be weighted accordingly. Then if after that things are close between two players, picking for need is fine.

The public scouting resources are probably guilty of failing to do that more than teams are.

For Lekkerimaki, everything turns on the Canucks’ valuation of him as a top-5 pick. Between getting a top-5 ranked winger or a top-15 to 20ish centre or defenceman, it is hard to imagine any positional adjustment would justify the latter. But if Lekkerimaki should have been rated in the 10-15 range, then they probably should have gone with the centre or defenceman.

Bolded is basically exactly what I'm saying.

And this is what a lot of teams (most teams?) do, which is why there are always these high-producing one-dimensional small skill wingers that fall in the draft that fans get really excited about. So if you're not doing this, you're going to end up getting a whole pile of the same type of player.

I'll add that this is a thing that snowballs. If we'd taken, say, Stankoven (C) and Korczak (D) with our last two high winger picks, going for a smallish skill winger you really like in this situation is a totally different thing. But when you look at where our system currently sits on C and D ... man.

And it's totally correct that this hinges on their rating of Lekkerimaki as a top-5 level talent. If that's where they had him rated (and it looks like they did), fair enough. But if this pick doesn't turn out, there will be a lot of questions asked.

 

[MS]

If I recall what you said earlier, your pick for us in the first round was Firkus right? If possible, trading back to get him?

I would have been leaning Bichsel on that pick although I would have wanted to do a pile of homework on his recent concussion. Bichsel to me was the highest-upside guy if he hits and the potential highest-value long term asset (two of the many forms of BPA) and also filled a position of need.

If something like the 15 for 26 and 33 trade with Montreal happened, what I was saying is that I don't think there's a *huge* difference between Lekkerimaki and guys like Firkus and Howard and they could have taken one of those guys and also added a Chesley or Warren to solve a positional need. I mentioned Firkus because their toolboxes are so similar - skinny, average skaters, great hands, and a surprising laser of a shot given their body type.

 

[Love]

@Mogilny to Bure I’m awaiting your official nickname for him

Lekky Boy Maki? Aka LBM?

 

[M2Beezy]

@Mogilny to Bure I’m awaiting your official nickname for him

Lekky Boy Maki? Aka LBM?

I was thinking Johnny boy Mak, but yes, that works too

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

I would have been leaning Bichsel on that pick although I would have wanted to do a pile of homework on his recent concussion. Bichsel to me was the highest-upside guy if he hits and the potential highest-value long term asset (two of the many forms of BPA) and also filled a position of need.

If something like the 15 for 26 and 33 trade with Montreal happened, what I was saying is that I don't think there's a *huge* difference between Lekkerimaki and guys like Firkus and Howard and they could have taken one of those guys and also added a Chesley or Warren to solve a positional need. I mentioned Firkus because their toolboxes are so similar - skinny, average skaters, great hands, and a surprising laser of a shot given their body type.

I see, we were both big fans of Bichsel then. I was torn between the two, Lek and Bichsel. In the end I had Lek just ahead. Did you do a pre draft ranking?

 

[tyhee]

The line up of lost dreams. We all believed it.

Many of us didn't and got a lot of laughs at the projections.

 

[Quinning]

Many of us didn't and got a lot of laughs at the projections.

The Baertschis, the Huttons, the Veys, the Granlunds...

 

[pitseleh]

And this is what a lot of teams (most teams?) do, which is why there are always these high-producing one-dimensional small skill wingers that fall in the draft that fans get really excited about. So if you're not doing this, you're going to end up getting a whole pile of the same type of player.

I'll add that this is a thing that snowballs. If we'd taken, say, Stankoven (C) and Korczak (D) with our last two high winger picks, going for a smallish skill winger you really like in this situation is a totally different thing. But when you look at where our system currently sits on C and D ... man.

Hockey is about 15 years behind baseball on this, it seems. Teams are better than fans on it.

Everyone knows that a slugger who hits 30 home runs and gets 100 RBIs because he bats third in the lineup on a good team is not valuable if he has a sub .300 OBP, but wingers who score 50-60 points in soft minutes are still valued relatively highly.

Likewise, you can pick a bunch of shortstops and starters because they can move around the field or become relievers, respectively, but can only pick so many first basemen/DH types (and shouldn't pick them early unless they absolutely rake). If more wingers moved to centre after being drafted then it could make more sense to pick them regardless of need, but guys who are playing wing in their draft year are usually doing so for a reason.

The flipside is it is not clear to me how important it is to have your best players play centre, all else equal. I suspect that strong play driving wingers are probably a bit undervalued.

 

[me2]

The issue isn't 2 wingers in 4 years, it is 2 picks in 4 years.

 

[Quinning]

Jet Black Jumbo traded way too many f***ing picks. Period.

It's hard to replenish the pipeline when you're building someone else's.

 

[Brock Boeser Laser Show]

I don't think you can fault Allvin for taking lekkerimaki. The dearth of young defense and centers in this organization lies squarely with Jimbo. He had 8 years to build up a solid defense and he failed horribly. He traded draft picks away for candy, traded for other teams junk , and never invested in proper development.

 

[me2]

I don't think you can fault Allvin for taking lekkerimaki. The dearth of young defense and centers in this organization lies squarely with Jimbo. He had 8 years to build up a solid defense and he failed horribly. He traded draft picks away for candy, traded for other teams junk , and never invested in proper development.

Not only that but there really weren't many C or RHD available around that point in the draft. They didn't pass on any obvious options.

 

[tyhee]

I understand exactly what people mean. They mean you shouldn’t compromise on taking the best player in order to fill a positional need.

But there is just no such thing as the ‘BPA’ in the vast majority of cases. You’re looking at a range of incredibly similar prospects who play all positions.

FWIW, I think BPA should refer to best prospect available and that best player available is not what a team should be looking for in the draft. They aren't looking for who is the best 17 year old player except to the extent it is an indicator of what the kid will become. I know people always say it as "best player available" but don't think it makes sense.

Whether player or prospect, different people will have different weightings on playing characteristics and scouts won't always agree on what they see.

 

[tyhee]

The Baertschis, the Huttons, the Veys, the Granlunds...

My favourites were at a lower level, my all-time favourite being the projections that Cole Cassels and Jordan Subban would be Canuck regulars (in Cassels case often 3rd line) in 2015-16, their first season out of junior.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It seems to me that is the result of not properly weighting the evaluation of the BPA, not a problem with BPA as a strategy. If centres and defencemen are in fact more important and harder to acquire, lists should be weighted accordingly. Then if after that things are close between two players, picking for need is fine.

The public scouting resources are probably guilty of failing to do that more than teams are.

For Lekkerimaki, everything turns on the Canucks’ valuation of him as a top-5 pick. Between getting a top-5 ranked winger or a top-15 to 20ish centre or defenceman, it is hard to imagine any positional adjustment would justify the latter. But if Lekkerimaki should have been rated in the 10-15 range, then they probably should have gone with the centre or defenceman.

Meaning, BPA as a strategy has merit, as long as that evaluation method yielding the BPA lists is weighted properly. I do believe lists are weighted accordingly (to favour Cs and Ds).

Lekkerimaki's skill set was not closely represented beyond him, IMO. Therefore, a lower ranged centre or defenseman was not an equal value exchange. To others, that exchange was more or less even; therefore, they would have traded down/taken the lesser C or D. That's really the difference in evaluations. (To reflect the argument of the team evaluating JL as a top 10 talent that fell)

In a vacuum, you could make the argument that all things being equal, Cs and Ds should be prioritized, sure. In this instance, I don't think that applies. And it makes little difference to me that the system is not "balanced" because of that choice.

We heard a similar argument about for Tkachuk/Juolevi. Position is secondary to quality and conversion.

 

[sting101]

I'll take the BPA to be honest..thats precisely one of the reasons we didnt take Tkachuk...He was a winger..

You can afford to be picky about position if you're picking at the top of the draft, but at 15...Its BPA all the way..IMO

In the late rounds you can stack up on any position you like.

edit:...just another thought...Kevin Korchinski was a massive reach at 7th OA...why ? because he was a D man..I believe this player will top out as a 2nd paring D man. (a complimentary piece)..I thought he should have gone around 12th OA..This guy is no Chychrun or Sergachev.

I think you missed the whole point of what we were arguing

 

[Orca Smash]

He also said they want to get faster and then proceeded to draft the slowest forward out of the first round.

This lekkerimaki is slow is very confusing, even on the mainboard people were wondering where that came from.

 

[RutherPlan]

This lekkerimaki is slow is very confusing, even on the mainboard people were wondering where that came from.

It literally came from a sportsnet analyst that never watched him play and then everyone watching his highlights that only featured him scoring goals from his wicked shot.

Then people here started comparing him to Boeser, then suddenly Lekkerimäki is a flawed skater.

Too many bullshit artists here.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

Agreed with this whole post. It's nothing against Lekkerimaki. He's obviously a very good prospect.

By the time we get to the 2023 draft it will be 5 years since the Canucks have taken a player at either of the most important, highest value positions of C and D.

Like you say, there are certain (unusual) situations where a massive scouting failure causes a Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers or a Bourdon over Kopitar situation to happen. But these are very rare.

End result is that we're in a situation where the existing NHL team is extremely thin on C and D and the system has literally nothing ... and it's a massive problem we need to fix and we're going to pay through the teeth to do it.

I say this a lot, but managing an NHL team isn't playing videogames. There are things you need to balance.

Small skill wingers tend to be the biggest droppers in the draft, and if you look at the draft a certain way you're going to be able to convince yourself that a small skill winger is the 'BPA' every time you come up with a high pick. And if you do that every time each pick might be fine in a vacuum but in the bigger picture you're going to create a mess.

Drafting for position over BPA is what got us Juolevi over Tkachuk, Virtanen over Ehlers/Nylander.

It's also the reason Kotkankeimi was drafted over Brady Tkachuk, and Barrett Hayton over Quinn Hughes.

I mean prioritizing getting a defenseman (OEL) is a big reason why Dylan Guenther isn't coming up in our system right now (who looks to be a steal for ARZ right now). I mean having Guenther in the line up would make it alot easier to let Boeser/Garland go.

I'd say drafting for position has put us in the mess we are in right now, combined with the fact we've only had 2 first round picks, 2 second picks, and 2 third round picks in the last 4 years. That's a combined 6/12 top 3 selections in the past 4 years as a rebuilding team...

 

[Johnny Canucker]

This lekkerimaki is slow is very confusing, even on the mainboard people were wondering where that came from.

I admittedly have watched 0:00 of his play. I’m just going on what a lot of people are saying.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

I agree that the pure BPA approach is not workable as a long term strategy for team building as you will end up with too many of the same lower value positional players, ie smallish skilled wingers.
In this case, though, I can see the logic in picking Lekkerimaki as he looks to have the most value in terms of projecting into the lineup as a potential first line scoring and play making winger as opposed to a 4/5 D man in Bichsel or Pickering or middle 6 C like Ostlund or Gaucher.

With competent management , we would have a solid lineup of centres, defencemen, and wingers along with a healthy prospect pool but Dim Jim couldn’t formulate a coherent plan and hold onto picks or re-acquire enough to execute a proper rebuild so here we are with a lineup full of holes, no cap space, and a meagre prospect pool where we need players in almost every position. Ideally you draft these types of wingers later on in your rebuild as they can be in your lineup relatively quickly and cheaply (at first) and can be picked up later in the first round once your team starts getting better and isn’t picking in the top 10 anymore.

The lack of C and D in the system should have been dealt with several years ago, now we have to pray for a miracle from guys like Woo or Johansson or hopefully get someone useable in return for JTM if they don’t re-sign him

 

[DS7]

According to the Athletic, Yzerman and the Wings seriously considered taking him at 8. That's good enough for me.