GDT: NHL Entry Draft | Day 2

[joelCAMEL]

Only the first three were from this administration, and two of them were allowed to walk for absolutely nothing and put up fantastic seasons this year for 6.3MM combined.

Is that your criteria for a good free agent signing...that assets must be recovered before they part the organization? Stecher had a journeyman year and nothing close to fantastic. Otherwise, Detroit would have protected him or Seattle would have drafted him.

 

[ziploc]

It is not strange how few have made an impact. You just gave no context of what other teams have done in the same time period. Demko, McCann, Virtanen, Forsling, Tryamkin, Boeser, Gaudette, OJ, Lockwood, Petterson, Rathbone, Hughes, Podz, and Hoglander. Some of those are playing for other teams or are not in league yet full time. However all are legit nhl talents there is more than 5 nhl players on this list. There was 5 nhl talents in 2014 draft alone. I am all aboard the mismanagement train but the draft and lack of picks is low on that list. Getting Miller, Toffoli, Schmidt, OEL and Garland for picks is not a bad thing. Signing multiple crap FA's is what hurt this team. Take a look at other teams draft history from 2014 to now and compare. Very few teams come out ahead. They all have made multiple mistakes. It is a false narrative that good teams have killed it drafting relative to the Canucks since 2014. Now 2007 to 2013 is a different beast that is still hurting this team, these last two drafts may hurt the Canucks like those drafts in a few years but it is not what caused these recent teams to lose.

Ok. And I agree that horrible FA signings have destroyed the team. But if there were at least a surplus of picks in these current drafts - or hell, just our full complement of picks - we'd be in a much better position going forward. It is a complete mismanagement of priorities (and pro scouting, of course) that leads to a cap-ceiling, bottom-feeding team with an embarrassing paucity of draft picks.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Holtby and Schmidt are the primary ones.

Holtby has negative v value at this point.

 

[Melvin]

So I was replying to a person and said if they are considering podz and rathbone as roster players id consider it 8(should be 7, 8 was from a comment with someone else over something else, sorry). If you dont consider them you have Boeser in 17-18, pettersson in 18-19, Hughes 19-20. Demko+ Hoglander(who eclipsed what i thought would be a 3rd liner) in 20-21. Thats a 1c, top pairing d, 1w, 2w, and a high end 1g. I havent seen many teams be able to promote that many high end players in the last 5 years.

Thats all im trying to point out as to why our depth doesnt look good. While agreeing it should be better

So Arizona in that same time period has Keller & Fischer in 17-18, Garland & Strome in 18-19 (although traded), probably Hayton and Soderstrom next year? Seems about the same.

When you're a bad team and you can just keep "promoting" the guy you took in the first round two years prior, that doesn't seem too impressive to me, but I'll admit that I haven't done the research.

 

[VancouverJagger]

We're gonna crush the 5th and 6th rounds guys............

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Holtby has negative v value at this point.

Gotta find a way to turn Schmidt into more than you paid for him.

A B prospect + pick next season would be nice.

 

[Orca Smash]

Gotta find a way to turn Schmidt into more than you paid for him.

A B prospect + pick next season would be nice.

Thats what scary about moving schmidt, clearly teams know we paid a 3rd, and given our current defensive holes, he is worth more then that to us, so I dont know how you make a trade that makes sense.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Thats what scary about moving schmidt, clearly teams know we paid a 3rd, and given our current defensive holes, he is worth more then that to us, so I dont know how you make a trade that makes sense.

Trade will probably look like this:

Nate Schmidt

for

Overrated 26 year old that hasn't lived up to their first round draft pedigree
6th round pick 2022

 

[ziploc]

Trade will probably look like this:

Nate Schmidt

for

Overrated 26 year old that hasn't lived up to their first round draft pedigree
6th round pick 2022

You have clearly forgotten the 4th round pick we throw in.

 

[Melvin]

Trade will probably look like this:

Nate Schmidt

for

Overrated 26 year old that hasn't lived up to their first round draft pedigree
6th round pick 2022

You've got the 6th round pick on the wrong side.

 

[ziploc]

You've got the 6th round pick on the wrong side.

We are cynical. But it is well-earned.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

This lack of picks comes directly from mismanagement of assets. It's little things. For example, not moving players in their last seasons at the deadline when you're obviously not winning a cup and they won't be re-signing. You can go back through all the years even to Hamhuis. It all adds up.

Benning's regime (and so many Canucks GMs before him) will have pissed away half of the picks they could have had just through asset mismanagement.

 

[dbaz]

So Arizona in that same time period has Keller & Fischer in 17-18, Garland & Strome in 18-19 (although traded), probably Hayton and Soderstrom next year? Seems about the same.

When you're a bad team and you can just keep "promoting" the guy you took in the first round two years prior, that doesn't seem too impressive to me, but I'll admit that I haven't done the research.

Yea they have promoted similar amount but talent wise they are not similar imo. That looks like a 1w, 2w, and a tweener(I'm not high on fischer, could be arz effect tho) . The last two would be graduating next year like podz and rathbone, I wouldn't count strome as he's not there. It would be like me considering Forsling as a top 4 for us.
Yes if you were to promote first two rounds every year you'd have similar numbers but these picks bust or don't amount to the level they should be. Juolevi and virtanen are examples of this, it happens to all teams.
Most teams would not be able to promote the high end talent the Canucks have over same span, which is why while depth is still a concern it is not as bad as zero depth etc

 

[Melvin]

Yea they have promoted similar amount but talent wise they are not similar imo. That looks like a 1w, 2w, and a tweener(I'm not high on fischer, could be arz effect tho) . The last two would be graduating next year like podz and rathbone, I wouldn't count strome as he's not there. It would be like me considering Forsling as a top 4 for us.
Yes if you were to promote first two rounds every year you'd have similar numbers but these picks bust or don't amount to the level they should be. Juolevi and virtanen are examples of this, it happens to all teams.
Most teams would not be able to promote the high end talent the Canucks have over same span, which is why while depth is still a concern it is not as bad as zero depth etc

I mean they promoted Strome and then they traded him. Not the same as Forsling who never played a game for the Canucks.

Fair points though; I might look into this a bit more later.

 

[Bleach Clean]

@Orca Smash

If i dont like his game why would i think he is highly talented, I think he has trouble stick handling while skating, he often quits moving his feet like mittlestadt, yes he makes some fancy plays but i dont equate that with high talent. I think he looks incredibly raw when i watch him i dont equate that to high talent. He looks sloppy and a step slow at times making decisions on ice. I think that is going to catch up to him at the higher levels. And has been pointed out he racked up a ton of secondary assists playing with berniers.

Get over it, I disagree with you, or lets keep going in circles where you keep telling me my opinion is "absurd". This might be the most annoying conversation i had on this board. I feel like im back 2 years ago arguing in the zegras vs turcotte threads where it was absurd to suggest zegras is a far better player because the media rankings and some fans could only see turcotte as a high end two way skilled center and he was more highly touted and went 5th overall. My opinion is different then your's on kent johnson. And yes I often disagree with media rankings and some nhl teams when they highly rank someone. Why was cody glass so highly touted to the point he was above pettersson when some of us did not see why he was ranked so high? I had no idea what the fanfare was over cody glass and so did a few others. Teams and media can get it wrong. And again I disagreed when you claimed johnson had a higher ceiling then eklund.

We are muddying this thread up with this back and forth, lets just move on, I know from your history you will spend days arguing this. You can criticize me and rehash this all you want and even tell me I am wrong when hes setting the world on fire.

Bringing this here:

My history huh? I hope that if it's one thing my posting has made clear here, it's that I assail illogical arguments... and that's what I'm doing here. Your argument is illogical because you're redefining the word "talent" to fit your purpose, instead of using the word how it is generally used. I'll point this out and then leave the last word to you.

Talent is a natural skill for hockey (in this case). A talented player can make plays, stickhandle and read the game at a higher level. You hinted at this for Johnson by saying he can make "fancy plays". That's an indication of talent, right? You can't then say he does some things poorly to the point where he is untalented. He still makes those fancy plays...

You can say he has a lot of problems, but we are talking about the existence of talent. The presence of it. Not that he has problems utilizing it. Do you understand? The presence of high end talent is a Yes/No answer, and then the critique of everything he does wrong can happen.

To use your Turcotte/Zegras example: Zegras was always, to my knowledge, regarded as being the more naturally talented player. Turcotte got ranked higher because he was more complete. More polished defensively, with faceoffs and his shot. Being more talented doesn't mean better. It just means more innately skilled.

 

[Melvin]

Almost there you guys. Ten more picks!

 

[Melvin]

I believe Carolina has traded down 8 times? Insane, they have 13 picks right now.

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

Almost there you guys. Ten more picks!

Only about a 3.5-hour wait to get here

 

[RebuildinVan]

Geez I forgot were out the 4th too....gotta nail that extra 5th

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Robert Orr or Jake Martin here if Tschigerl is gone.

 

[Orca Smash]

@Orca Smash




Bringing this here:

My history huh? I hope that if it's one thing my posting has made clear here, it's that I assail illogical arguments... and that's what I'm doing here. Your argument is illogical because you're redefining the word "talent" to fit your purpose, instead of using the word how it is generally used. I'll point this out and then leave the last word to you.

Talent is a natural skill for hockey (in this case). A talented player can make plays, stickhandle and read the game at a higher level. You hinted at this for Johnson by saying he can make "fancy plays". That's an indication of talent, right? You can't then say he does some things poorly to the point where he is untalented. He still makes those fancy plays...

You can say he has a lot of problems, but we are talking about the existence of talent. The presence of it. Not that he has problems utilizing it. Do you understand? The presence of high end talent is a Yes/No answer, and then the critique of everything he does wrong can happen.

To use your Turcotte/Zegras example: Zegras was always, to my knowledge, regarded as being the more naturally talented player. Turcotte got ranked higher because he was more complete. More polished defensively, with faceoffs and his shot. Being more talented doesn't mean better. It just means more innately skilled.

The problem continues because you seem to think its so unfathomable I dont see the high end talent you see in Kent johnson and now i am misusing the word talent, thats where the argument keeps going with you and I keep banging my head against the wall because I simply dont see the high end talent you see, and you just cant fathom that opinion, I believe you even called the opinion absurd. But now your making the claim having an opinion is illogical because you disagree with it. And somehow me disagreeing with your take on Kent Johnson vs william eklund, has somehow derailed into this nitpicking conversation you have created about the word talent.

I cant put it anymore into black and white, clearly we see two different things when viewing this player, and the turcotte zegras example was not about talent, simply the reaction i received to your post reminded me of the reactions some fans provided when I claimed zegras was a far better hockey player and should go higher in the draft. I was not taking this talent argument into the discussion which seems to be a hill your willing die on. Simply that you calling out my opinion on a player reminded me of those discussions. I wont ever tell someone there take and evaluation on a player is absurd, especially a prospect. The media and some nhl teams can and do get it wrong, do your own research, form your own opinions and stick to them.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

Willam Trudeau goes to Montreal. He should have gone to Ottawa

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Carolina is up to 13 picks next year. It's like they are playing NHL 21

 

[Nucker101]

Bar or Arcuri

 

[RebuildinVan]

Carolina is up to 13 picks next year. It's like they are playing NHL 21

Benning after the draft..."there just wasnt any trades for picks available"