Some interesting choices for draft selection, and I have to say, as much as I want best player available, vs positional and franchise need, sometimes the 2 can be one and the same, if the proper development and investment is made in the journey from draftee to player. Barlow, Moore, Willander, and several others available in the #11 spot are intriguing and full of possibility. But we need centers, and we need defensemen. You can only draft and develop so much when you aren't addressing the backbone of the forward group, and the right side of the defense group. We need to also think about how you're building out your AHL group. There is a certain synergy that you need to have in development, and you can't unlock some things without all the pieces at hand.
Always BPA, unless both are roughly the same in ranking. Hence I never had an issue with the OJ pick over MT. People forget that both players were highly ranked (OJ at #6, MT at #4). As the Canucks needed a defenseman, they took OJ. Nothing wrong with that philosophy… just obviously didn't pan out as expected.
Since the draft is so deep, you might be able to do both. Picking a potential 3rd line centre is aiming too low in the first round. If there’s Reinbacher or another potential top 4 D, especially if they have their defensive game down already, I don’t know how you pass on that, but the Canucks have been prone to making stupid decisions at the draft since the beginning.
The defence in the coming season is way better than last year's. We don't need a Defenceman on the farm if we keep hitting on college D like Hirosi and McWard. With Hronek and hopefully Bear were looking fine. Our problem on defence is economic, we're paying OEL and Myers too much money, that's it. Our organizational need is depth down the middle. If a player comes up that both fills a need like centre and is also the bpa the Canucks need to jump on that. If the bpa happens to be a winger then oh well, we take the bpa anyway. Barlow or Benson, if they're available and happen to be the the best choice available I won't be upset if the Canucks pick one of them.
Best player. Who knows what our needs will be, by the time the pick is ready to play. Could be 2-3 years before he even plays. Team could be half different guys by then easy.
i. BPA ii. If the difference between BPA and the next couple of players are negligible, then draft for position. iii. Don't draft for position when there is a clear superstar available in a different position.
How well did drafting for position work out for them with Juolevi? They passed on the best player available, and ended up taking the worst defenceman available. If everything else is equal, take the best player available.
The principal is to draft the best player available, but drafting players is not EA's NHL xx game where every player has a rating and it is more clear as to which one is "better". One player may have better speed, but another player is more physical, and another player has better finish, so in such cases, the needs for the team would become more important. Dhali's point, I think, is that you can't really say year after year that when there are players comparable, yet the team consistently chose to not draft a defenceman. On any given year, sure, pick someone who you feel is "better;" but to go years opting not to draft a d-man is problematic, and the results are clear when we look at the Canucks' blue line.
honestly not sure why i keep clicking on these vancouver sports radio shows, the quality of the discussions are always garbage. yet here i am, watching another one
Normally, I would agree with Donnie about taking the best player available. However, Rick is absolutely right. A team can't go half a decade without drafting a top tier defender. That's why a full rebuild is crucial in order to acquire as many draft picks as possible. Linden can take a victory lap. He's been vindicated. Vancouver is in their 9th year of retooling. A decade! We've could have done 2 full rebuilds in that time frame.
Picking the best player available is not a good way of drafting, Jimmy Johnson use to say “ if I take the best player available, I won’t be around when they get good. So I take the player I want for my system and where he is supposed to go in the draft “
22 Comments
Some interesting choices for draft selection, and I have to say, as much as I want best player available, vs positional and franchise need, sometimes the 2 can be one and the same, if the proper development and investment is made in the journey from draftee to player. Barlow, Moore, Willander, and several others available in the #11 spot are intriguing and full of possibility. But we need centers, and we need defensemen. You can only draft and develop so much when you aren't addressing the backbone of the forward group, and the right side of the defense group. We need to also think about how you're building out your AHL group. There is a certain synergy that you need to have in development, and you can't unlock some things without all the pieces at hand.
Always BPA, unless both are roughly the same in ranking.
Hence I never had an issue with the OJ pick over MT. People forget that both players were highly ranked (OJ at #6, MT at #4). As the Canucks needed a defenseman, they took OJ. Nothing wrong with that philosophy… just obviously didn't pan out as expected.
Since the draft is so deep, you might be able to do both. Picking a potential 3rd line centre is aiming too low in the first round. If there’s Reinbacher or another potential top 4 D, especially if they have their defensive game down already, I don’t know how you pass on that, but the Canucks have been prone to making stupid decisions at the draft since the beginning.
Don’t miss out on another tkatchuk ! Best player available!!!
The defence in the coming season is way better than last year's. We don't need a Defenceman on the farm if we keep hitting on college D like Hirosi and McWard. With Hronek and hopefully Bear were looking fine. Our problem on defence is economic, we're paying OEL and Myers too much money, that's it. Our organizational need is depth down the middle. If a player comes up that both fills a need like centre and is also the bpa the Canucks need to jump on that. If the bpa happens to be a winger then oh well, we take the bpa anyway. Barlow or Benson, if they're available and happen to be the the best choice available I won't be upset if the Canucks pick one of them.
if you can't draft reinbacher or pelikka @ 11th (they'll probably both be gone) then take the top ranked C at that point
Best player. Who knows what our needs will be, by the time the pick is ready to play. Could be 2-3 years before he even plays. Team could be half different guys by then easy.
i. BPA
ii. If the difference between BPA and the next couple of players are negligible, then draft for position.
iii. Don't draft for position when there is a clear superstar available in a different position.
How well did drafting for position work out for them with Juolevi? They passed on the best player available, and ended up taking the worst defenceman available. If everything else is equal, take the best player available.
The principal is to draft the best player available, but drafting players is not EA's NHL xx game where every player has a rating and it is more clear as to which one is "better". One player may have better speed, but another player is more physical, and another player has better finish, so in such cases, the needs for the team would become more important. Dhali's point, I think, is that you can't really say year after year that when there are players comparable, yet the team consistently chose to not draft a defenceman. On any given year, sure, pick someone who you feel is "better;" but to go years opting not to draft a d-man is problematic, and the results are clear when we look at the Canucks' blue line.
because julevi worked out so well for the team, right Rick??? LMAO
Always pick BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE
BPA especially if Michkov falls into our lap
honestly not sure why i keep clicking on these vancouver sports radio shows, the quality of the discussions are always garbage. yet here i am, watching another one
Normally, I would agree with Donnie about taking the best player available. However, Rick is absolutely right. A team can't go half a decade without drafting a top tier defender.
That's why a full rebuild is crucial in order to acquire as many draft picks as possible. Linden can take a victory lap. He's been vindicated. Vancouver is in their 9th year of retooling. A decade! We've could have done 2 full rebuilds in that time frame.
They got some good D prospects out of NCAA. Pick best player available.
you draft the best player who will have the best pound-for-pound career, so like.. HOFers and stuff like that. draft those players.
Pick the best player available.. if you pick postionally you dont have the best player and he isn't worth anything as a trade bait
Best player available… PERIOD
i called it they would pick willander over asp. call me nosterdomus.
How about draft the best Canadian available!
Picking the best player available is not a good way of drafting, Jimmy Johnson use to say “ if I take the best player available, I won’t be around when they get good. So I take the player I want for my system and where he is supposed to go in the draft “
Since the prospect pool is terrible overall they should take best player available. Would've been nice to have another first and second rounder.