corn on the cop posted:

ThinkTank posted:

I'd be more than happy with Glass, Suzuki or Vilardi (in that order - I'm not so high on Vilardi). I'm glad Pronman put Suzuki so high, he scored at basically an identical rate to Hischier and Patrick this year.

ThinkTank posted:

Petersson could well turn out to be a top quality NHLer, but it's hard to say from the stats and the Canucks specifically can't afford to mess this pick up. They need a hit, so taking a CHLer with a long track record of statistical analysis to back it up is their best bet.

ThinkTank posted:

I think it's wise to be cautious of players playing at a lower level than the rest of their peers

Paracaidas posted:

Can anyone give me details on Casey Mittlestadt? Can I look forward to a decade of Wild fans bitching about the Hanzal trade making it impossible to move up to get him? I'm aware this is irrational anger, but it is our specialty in these parts.

ThinkTank posted:

Sure it's a men's league, but it's not a good one. It's a noticeable step below the SEL in terms of ability. Furthermore, almost no players go from Allvsvenskan to North America, not enough to build a complete picture of the league's strength.

NHLe isn't perfect, but the current (as of five years ago) method is to calculate the equivalency for the Allsvenskan to the SEL, then the SEL to the NHL which gives you a rate of about .36. That's slightly above the CHL's general score of .30, but a long way off most other pro leagues. So Petersson probably put up the equivalent of a 28-30 point NHL season this year in the Allsvenskan. Certainly not bad for a 17/18 year old. Then again, it's not spectacular and with the uncertainty over projecting out of the Allsvenskan there are a number of CHLers who put up equal or better seasons with much more evidence to back up their success.

Petersson could turn out to be very good, I think he's a highly skilled guy and he could very well translate that to the NHL in a meaningful capacity. My only issue is that without a bevvy of evidence to back it up, it's a big risk. It's essentially taking eyeball scouting over statistical analysis which for a team like the Canucks is the last thing they should be doing.

ThinkTank posted:

I thought Bo Horvat was a terrible pick at the time.

El Gallinero Gros posted:

Flames website writer did a mock. It's uh, interesting.

https://www.nhl.com/flames/news/mock-draft---george-johnson/c-289706278

I wouldn't mind Nick Suzuki though, unless there's something I should know about him

Kilza posted:

Bob McKenzie released his final draft rankings, and he has Hischier over Patrick for 1st overall.

eXXon posted:

Well there's the fact that Chychrun was the only defenseman drafted last season to actually play the whole year in the NHL. I suppose you can argue that he was an over-analyzed/nitpicked faller just like Liljegren is likely to be, but it's really hard for first-time draftees to make the NHL right away - especially defensemen. Also this draft is supposed to be weak.

CMvan46 posted:

I hope the Canucks take Glass if available. I don't mind Makar if they take him but I do think he's a big time gamble.

It's hard to fault Benning on the Virtanen pick. If they had passed up on the home town kid who was not a reach at their pick we would have never heard the end of it from fans and media here. Unfortunately I just don't think he's smart or motivated enough to play his game to higher levels.

CMvan46 posted:

Barely anybody complained when they picked him at the time and every "expert" and mock draft had him going around where we took him as well. People do give a poo poo though and it was a marketing dream if it worked out and junior stats are a crappy argument for drafting a player especially considering the style of game he plays.

CMvan46 posted:

I still think we are far enough from being any good a defenceman isn't a horrible choice this year just because they typically take longer to develop though I don't mind the young defence group we have already. Benning's interview he just did on 1040 seemed to me like he was leaning forward.

It's hard to know how honest they are in those interviews but he did say he doesnt know who is going 3-4 and that a lot of teams have this top 10 ranked completely differently. I do wonder if we could see the Canucks move down a spot or two if a couple of their guys are still available at 5.

He also said Tanev is a big part of the team and their best defenceman (no poo poo) and that to trade him they'd have to get a defenceman in return. So that changes some of the chance around him going for a high pick, at least on his own.

ThinkTank posted:

Oh I know that people were excited, he was a flashy new prospect and everyone loves those. The fact that he was a local kid was just icing on the cake and of course people liked that. Most people aren't obsessive nerds about prospects like I am so wouldn't have known there was such a glaring gulf in talent between Virtanen and Ehlers/Nylander that was obvious with one second of research. If management had selected Ehlers, I'm sure there would've been a bunch of angry "SHOULDA TAKEN DA ABBYSFURD KID" calls into local radio shows, but the moment Ehlers started scoring in the NHL everyone would've forgotten. It's not management's job to make people immediately happy at the expense of future success, it's about incremental improvement over time so you select the guys most likely to have the greatest amount o NHL success. In 2014, that was quite clearly Ehlers or Nylander and not Virtanen. No one would say Virtanen's name ever again if Ehlers skated around the rink in a Canucks uniform with a cup raised over his head.

Exactly, I wasn't born a diehard fan. I became one because of players like Naslund, Bertuzzi and Jovanovski kicking rear end and taking names way back when. I can tell you that at no point did I pretend to be Brendan Morrison while playing hockey in my driveway lifting the cup. The fact he was from Vancouver meant nothing to me, I'm pretty sure I didn't know he was when I was a kid. I just liked the guys who scored lots of goals and did rad poo poo and I tried to emulate that. I don't think things are fundamentally different for kids today, and they'll embrace whoever has success with the team. Look at Bo, he's the most (actually only) popular guy on the team and he's from London, ON which is a craphole and a very long way from Vancouver.

ThinkTank posted:

I wouldn't exactly be heartbroken if we took a D at five because well I'm not sold on Juolevi either and we have an abject lack of talent at any and all positions so anything helps. I just want a centre because flashy forwards are more fun to watch when the team is inevitably going to suck.

ThinkTank posted:

I doubt it, Vegas will probably take a forward at 6 because they need someone to sell to new hockey fans and that's not a defenceman or small Swedish kid.

ThinkTank posted:

Oh yeah, he's hardly a dangle factory. He's just the most likely to have success of anyone available and the Canucks can't be picky about how they score goals at the moment. Don't get me wrong, Petersson looks fun as poo poo, I wouldn't be upset if we drafted him I'd just be a bit worried that it wouldn't translate to the NHL. My only concern with him is that with so little translation between the Allsvenskan and the NHL, it's hard to say definitively how much his offence will translate and the Canucks really, really can't afford to make any more low percentage bets with high picks.