HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

NHL Mock Draft 2012 Edition (Canucks pick G Malcom Subban)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2012, 02:54 PM
  #101
Zarpan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Was it wrong for the Canucks to draft Schneider at 26th in 2004?
As per the Edmonton Journal article, drafting a goalie in the first round has significantly poorer than average odds of success. I think the Canucks probably lucked out quite a bit there. Either that, or they were very, very confident in their scouting.

Taking a look at the 2004 NHL Central Scouting Service final rankings, the North American goalie rankings were:

1. Montoya
2. Dubnyk
3. Shantz
4. Peters
5. Glass
6. Lacosta
7. Schneider

As well, Schwarz was a very highly rated European goalie. Of the 7 goalies rated above Schneider, 4 were complete busts, 2 probably have careers as backups, and 1 (Dubnyk) might turn into an okay starting goalie.

So 2004 actually reinforces that it's generally a bad idea to pick the highest rated player left if it's a goalie.

Zarpan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 02:59 PM
  #102
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarpan View Post
As per the Edmonton Journal article, drafting a goalie in the first round has significantly poorer than average odds of success. I think the Canucks probably lucked out quite a bit there. Either that, or they were very, very confident in their scouting.

Taking a look at the 2004 NHL Central Scouting Service final rankings, the North American goalie rankings were:

1. Montoya
2. Dubnyk
3. Shantz
4. Peters
5. Glass
6. Lacosta
7. Schneider

As well, Schwarz was a very highly rated European goalie. Of the 7 goalies rated above Schneider, 4 were complete busts, 2 probably have careers as backups, and 1 (Dubnyk) might turn into an okay starting goalie.

So 2004 actually reinforces that it's generally a bad idea to pick the highest rated player left if it's a goalie.
Did the Canucks interview Schneider and other goalies? Don't know if that information would be readily available.

AvantiCanada* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 03:06 PM
  #103
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Was it wrong for the Canucks to draft Schneider at 26th in 2004?
No, it wasn't wrong to draft him, but in terms of asset management you have to think the Canucks would get more value out of drafting a skater in most drafts.

It's been 8 years since Schneider was drafted. He's played less than 70 games and the Canucks are in a situation where they could conceivably lose him for a late first rounder in a so-so draft. And Schneider bucked the trend by becoming a regular. Most goaltenders drafted in the first three rounds do not even make the league.

Is that good value for a first round pick? I don't think so.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 03:45 PM
  #104
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
No, it wasn't wrong to draft him, but in terms of asset management you have to think the Canucks would get more value out of drafting a skater in most drafts.

It's been 8 years since Schneider was drafted. He's played less than 70 games and the Canucks are in a situation where they could conceivably lose him for a late first rounder in a so-so draft. And Schneider bucked the trend by becoming a regular. Most goaltenders drafted in the first three rounds do not even make the league.

Is that good value for a first round pick? I don't think so.
That all depends on the draft, who is available and how good your scouting is. In 1990 would we have been worse off picking Martin Brodeur instead of Shawn Antoski? Sure these situations aren't the norm but they do occur frequently where you make the wrong pick...whether its a goalie or not.

Like I said, there are plenty of other players I'd rather be able to choose at 26, but if they aren't available I'd take Subban.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 04:05 PM
  #105
mrbitterguy
Registered User
 
mrbitterguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: san francisco
Country: Canada
Posts: 701
vCash: 500
for me the draft is about filling your pipeline. with 4 goalies currently in the system that are or are still projected to be nhl starters (luongo, schneider, lack, cannata) and 1 that is a long shot but still has a high ceiling (honzik) i think the pipeline is full for goalie. on the other hand whats the organizational depth at center? pretty ****. easy choice when you look at it like that.

mrbitterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 04:13 PM
  #106
Laterade
Registered User
 
Laterade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,259
vCash: 500
I wonder who his favorite goalie was growing up?

Laterade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 04:49 PM
  #107
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Was it wrong for the Canucks to draft Schneider at 26th in 2004?
The highest ranked guy left on Bob Mackenzie's pre-draft list when we picked Schneider was David Bolland...so I think the answer is maybe.

Bolland certainly would have filled a key role on our team for a few years now (and we probably wouldn't have screwed up his qualifying offer forcing us to pay him $3M to keep him).

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 04:59 PM
  #108
Socratic Method Man
Registered User
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,519
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
Honzik took a substantial step back in development and isn't even the starter on his team.

Nashville took Chet Pickard with their 1st rounder a number of years ago, and even though he hasn't developed as planned, it was still a decent pick imo.

But yeah BPA always, trade for need.

Also to those people saying that we should be drafting high end talent at 26, generally high end offensive talent is gone by the top half of the draft, unless you're going after players with significant holes in their game, like Rob Schremp. And usually then, only teams with multiple 1st round picks can afford to try their luck with one of these players.
I would go one step further and say that in most recent drafts, the highend offensive talent - and the sure-fire highend offensive talent - is gone by the first 4 picks of the draft.

After that there is some highend defensive talent, because dmen are harder to predict the futures of. And highend goalies can be found even later because they are even harder to predict the futures of.

However, this last point I made doesn't mean that you shouldn't pick a goalie high in the draft, imo. We as fans, for the most part, are not scouts, so most of us don't really know what NHL teams are looking for. However, scouts can see talent, they can see if a goalie has what it takes to be a star at the NHL level. Even though goalies' futures are harder to predict, if there is elite talent there, I think you should pick a goalie - IF there is no elite talent anywhere else. And I don't think there will be because it's pick #26, plus it appears to be a weak draft.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 05:05 PM
  #109
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
The highest ranked guy left on Bob Mackenzie's pre-draft list when we picked Schneider was David Bolland...so I think the answer is maybe.

Bolland certainly would have filled a key role on our team for a few years now (and we probably wouldn't have screwed up his qualifying offer forcing us to pay him $3M to keep him).
TSN had Bolland ranked 22nd...not that TSN (Bob McKenzie) is the ultimate authority, he had Marek Schwartz ranked 6th overall and Al Montoya 4th overall. It's a crapshoot for the most part.

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:54 PM
  #110
94eleven
fka Loosemonkeys
 
94eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Just a thought but Subban would make much more sense if Schneider was the one being dealt. It has been written everywhere that Luongo has 4-6 years left as a #1 which would put us right into Subban's time frame.

If there is no goalie trade by Friday and Subban is selected, I think it would be a huge tip to which direction the goalie situation is headed.

94eleven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:28 PM
  #111
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,402
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94eleven View Post
If there is no goalie trade by Friday and Subban is selected, I think it would be a huge tip to which direction the goalie situation is headed.
Not necessarily, it could just be a move for organizational depth. One quick example would be New Jersey taking goaltenders in the first round in 1997 and 1999 and neither was able to supplant Brodeur as a starter or even backup.

I don't really have a problem with taking a goaltender in the first round - though skaters, preferably wingers and defensemen are what this team needs - if he's the best player available. Subban's got potential but much like all 18-year-old goalies, he's at least a few years away from making a real impact in the NHL.

Free Torts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:02 PM
  #112
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
No, it wasn't wrong to draft him, but in terms of asset management you have to think the Canucks would get more value out of drafting a skater in most drafts.

It's been 8 years since Schneider was drafted. He's played less than 70 games and the Canucks are in a situation where they could conceivably lose him for a late first rounder in a so-so draft. And Schneider bucked the trend by becoming a regular. Most goaltenders drafted in the first three rounds do not even make the league.

Is that good value for a first round pick? I don't think so.
At the time the Nucks drafted Schneider, their #1 goalie Cloutier had just torn his ACL. Auld was their goalie for much of that season. So, if the Nucks didn't acquire Luongo in 2006 or had not extended his contract, then who knows how many games Schneider would have played now.

Lots of circumstances have changed since they drafted him.

But, one thing to remember about these articles about goalies, in the 2004 draft, 4 goalies were drafted in round 1. Schwarz is a bust, Montoya appears to be a backup, Dubnyk is getting his shot at being #1 for the Oilers and it appears Schneider will finally get his shot in Vancouver.

Realize also, that there were over 30 goalies drafted after the 1st round. Rinne is the best of that bunch and Peters for Carolina is Ward's backup. So, you are taking your chances on landing a goalie if you are currently in need of one.

Rangers, for example are in a position where they should consider taking a goalie in the 1st round. Lundqvist was a mid round pick, but he's 30 this year. Fast forward 5 years from now, he'll be 35 and the goalie you draft in 2012 will be 23 with at least 3 years of pro under his belt (AHL and/or NHL). Perfect timing to pass the torch.

Of course there are going to be more non 1st round pick goalies than there are 1st round pick goalies. Pure numbers games.... Like in 2004, you have 4 in the 1st round and over 30 from the remaining rounds. What does that tell you about your odds of waiting for a goalie.

In 2009, no goalies went in round 1. Sens grabbed Robin Lehner early in the 2nd round. At 21, he has played 2 full seasons in the AHL and won a Calder Cup. Well on his way to playing in the NHL. Probably back in the AHL for 1 more season with Anderson and Bishop on 1 way deals, but should be ready at age 22.

Jack Campbell went early to Dallas in 2010. Visentin was a surprise pick by the Coyotes at the end of the 1st. Pickard had a shot at the 1st round, but went mid 2nd to the Avs. Hawks grabbed Simpson late in the 2nd.

Some years goalies get taken in round 1. Other years, you can wait to round 2 to grab the 2nd or 3rd rated goalie.

My philosophy is if your #1 guy is 30, and you have no good goalie prospect in the system, then you are better off to take a goalie if a good one is available. That's why I think the Rangers are a better option to take a goalie since Lundqvist is 30 than any of the 3 teams TSN list in the Bruins, Nucks, Kings since Rask, Schneider, Quick are around 25/26 years old. Makes little sense for them.

If you have no goalie right now, then you really have no choice because you are going to be limited to what you can get via trade or free agency. Likely to find a stop gap, unless you get lucky with a young goalie stuck behind a not so old vet, ala Bernier in LA and what could be Schneider in Vancouver.

If you are not desparte for a goalie prospect, take a flyer in the middle rounds and hope you get lucky. When Cory is 30, evaluate the goalies in the system. If none have #1 potential, then, yes, you have to use a high pick to grab one. If Cannata/Honzig show that they can be a #1 then you don't need to use a high pick. Maybe up to only a 2nd rounder.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:23 PM
  #113
94eleven
fka Loosemonkeys
 
94eleven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJP View Post
Not necessarily, it could just be a move for organizational depth. One quick example would be New Jersey taking goaltenders in the first round in 1997 and 1999 and neither was able to supplant Brodeur as a starter or even backup.

I don't really have a problem with taking a goaltender in the first round - though skaters, preferably wingers and defensemen are what this team needs - if he's the best player available. Subban's got potential but much like all 18-year-old goalies, he's at least a few years away from making a real impact in the NHL.
What I was trying to get at (and likely failed to get across) is that with the perceived strength of Vancouver's pipeline in net, if they were to take a goalie like Subban in the first round, I would think it is because one of the team's younger goaltenders (not Luongo) is deemed expendable or could be used to garner another asset.

I din't know what New Jersey's organizational depth in net was in 97 or 99 (though it does look like by '99 Damphousse was just starting in the AHL) but clearly they took one (or both) of these goalies in the hopes that they could at least become a back-up to Brodeur and possibly insurance in case he ever left as a UFA. In the Canucks case with Lack and Cannata behind Schneider and Luongo right now, I don't think there is as much of a pressing organizational need. That is why if they took a goalie it would, at least to me, look like he was being chosen to take the place of someone like Schneider/Lack in the organization's pipeline.

94eleven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:34 PM
  #114
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
That all depends on the draft, who is available and how good your scouting is. In 1990 would we have been worse off picking Martin Brodeur instead of Shawn Antoski? Sure these situations aren't the norm but they do occur frequently where you make the wrong pick...whether its a goalie or not.

Like I said, there are plenty of other players I'd rather be able to choose at 26, but if they aren't available I'd take Subban.
More often than not when you pick 20th in the draft there isn't a clear cut BPA. It's a crap shoot at that point. So don't tell me the Devils knew what they were getting when they picked Brodeur. They were lucky. No scout had any idea that he would be that good. If scouting was an exact science Martin Broduer would have been drafted second overall.

Personally, I don't know enough about Subbans game to declare him the BPA and I doubt anyone here does either. But from a statistical standpoint we do know that goaltenders drafted in the first three rounds are far less likely to become regulars compared to skaters. That to me says that BPA better be head and shoulders better because the odds are stacked against you.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 11:53 PM
  #115
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
More often than not when you pick 20th in the draft there isn't a clear cut BPA. It's a crap shoot at that point. So don't tell me the Devils knew what they were getting when they picked Brodeur. They were lucky. No scout had any idea that he would be that good. If scouting was an exact science Martin Broduer would have been drafted second overall.

Personally, I don't know enough about Subbans game to declare him the BPA and I doubt anyone here does either. But from a statistical standpoint we do know that goaltenders drafted in the first three rounds are far less likely to become regulars compared to skaters. That to me says that BPA better be head and shoulders better because the odds are stacked against you.
I agree it's a crapshoot...but if you have scouts who feel a goalie is the best option at that pick, you pick the goalie...otherwise why have scouts?

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:13 AM
  #116
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
My philosophy with goalies is that they need to play to get better. Usually the reason drafting goalies is such a crapshoot is because you're guessing two things: that the player has the raw talent you are looking for AND that the goalie is going to be a starter where he's playing.

Thats why drafting Honzik was a good move. He played for a poor team and had a very good playoff and was tapped as the probable #1 goalie the next year. Unfortunately he was supplanted and now isn't going to get the minutes he needs to keep developing.

The first round goalies are usually not safer, just more assured to get top reps. They are usually te clearcut #1 goalies on a good team despite being 17 and will be the goalie of choice for the next year.

A GMMG move would be to draft a high talent but blocked goalie in a middle round and move him from the CHL to a lesser league in exchange for guaranteed minutes.

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:38 AM
  #117
El Duderino
Registered User
 
El Duderino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Drafting a goalie would be a poor decision IMO. Goalie is a position where you only really need one great player on your team (you could make the argument for 2 goalies), as opposed to defence where you need to fill in 6 spots, and forward where you need to fill in 12. We have Schneider, Lack and Cannata - 3 great young goalies who should be good enough to adequately meet the Canucks' goaltending needs for the next 10 years. Our pressing needs are drafting high-impact forwards and defensemen; our prospect pool is one of the worst in the NHL, and we need more high quality pieces in the pipeline.

El Duderino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:29 AM
  #118
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
TSN had Bolland ranked 22nd...not that TSN (Bob McKenzie) is the ultimate authority, he had Marek Schwartz ranked 6th overall and Al Montoya 4th overall. It's a crapshoot for the most part.
Bolland was the highest ranked player on Bob's list when the Canucks went to draft. Therefore if his list was our list, we would have picked Bolland. It's the only fair way to look at it.

Maybe the Canucks had Schwartz and Montoya ranked higher than Schneider too...good thing they were gone.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:12 AM
  #119
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,660
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Duderino View Post
Drafting a goalie would be a poor decision IMO. Goalie is a position where you only really need one great player on your team (you could make the argument for 2 goalies), as opposed to defence where you need to fill in 6 spots, and forward where you need to fill in 12. We have Schneider, Lack and Cannata - 3 great young goalies who should be good enough to adequately meet the Canucks' goaltending needs for the next 10 years. Our pressing needs are drafting high-impact forwards and defensemen; our prospect pool is one of the worst in the NHL, and we need more high quality pieces in the pipeline.
Really? I think Washington Caps would disagree with you on that. I bet they are very happy they drafted as many goalies as they did over the years.

Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:33 AM
  #120
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Bolland was the highest ranked player on Bob's list when the Canucks went to draft. Therefore if his list was our list, we would have picked Bolland. It's the only fair way to look at it.

Maybe the Canucks had Schwartz and Montoya ranked higher than Schneider too...good thing they were gone.
Ok, why is "our list" Bob's list? Was Bob our chief scout?

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 09:05 AM
  #121
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter View Post
Really? I think Washington Caps would disagree with you on that. I bet they are very happy they drafted as many goalies as they did over the years.
The Caps draft goalies the way we do. They took Varlamov in the 1st and Neuvirth in the 2nd. Every one else has been a mid-rounder, including their latest savior, Braden Holtby (time will tell if he's a flash in the pan or the real deal).

The disagreement isn't whether we should draft goalies or not, just whether they merit a 1st rounder given our organizational depth.

Cocoa Crisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 11:25 AM
  #122
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoTeamDom View Post
My philosophy with goalies is that they need to play to get better. Usually the reason drafting goalies is such a crapshoot is because you're guessing two things: that the player has the raw talent you are looking for AND that the goalie is going to be a starter where he's playing.

Thats why drafting Honzik was a good move. He played for a poor team and had a very good playoff and was tapped as the probable #1 goalie the next year. Unfortunately he was supplanted and now isn't going to get the minutes he needs to keep developing.

The first round goalies are usually not safer, just more assured to get top reps. They are usually te clearcut #1 goalies on a good team despite being 17 and will be the goalie of choice for the next year.

A GMMG move would be to draft a high talent but blocked goalie in a middle round and move him from the CHL to a lesser league in exchange for guaranteed minutes.
Honzik was supplanted by a pretty freakin' good goalie in Brandon Whitney.

Honzik has been moved to Cape Breton (I think) where he'll get the lions share of starts (most likely).

I'm not ready to count him out as a prospect....lots of raw goalies like him (eg. Rinne) don't get a sniff until they are 24-26, we have a lot of time to develop him.

arsmaster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 11:37 AM
  #123
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Honzik was supplanted by a pretty freakin' good goalie in Brandon Whitney.

Honzik has been moved to Cape Breton (I think) where he'll get the lions share of starts (most likely).

I'm not ready to count him out as a prospect....lots of raw goalies like him (eg. Rinne) don't get a sniff until they are 24-26, we have a lot of time to develop him.
Honzik has plenty of time to improve his stock, don't get me wrong. But this year was thoroughly uninspiring from him. Cannata looks like a good prospect, but he's still green as grass at the pro level (this year will tell us a lot about him).

I'm not opposed to us adding some more depth to our goaltending pipeline. If Lack does indeed move up to the NHL as a backup leaving Cannata + AHL fodder as the Wolves' tandem, that only leaves Honzik in the system given that we didn't qualify Iilahti (who was turd). Whether we re-stock that system by using our 1st on Subban or not is up for debate, however. I wouldn't pitch a wobbly if we did select him, though.

That said, I'd prefer addressing a more immediate need with a forward or defender, and look for other goaltenders in later rounds. Andrei Makarov has been suggested as one decent prospect who could be available later. (and one that the Canucks apparently have an eye on, at that)

Mr. Canucklehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 09:56 PM
  #124
Kass Effect
Registered User
 
Kass Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Data Corrupted
Posts: 1,127
vCash: 358
Why select another goalie when we are stacked in net? just select the next BPA that isn't a goalie.

And its not like a late-first round goalie is a sure thing. I'd much rather take a stab at a skater. Roll the dice on under-rated goalies in the later round, and get a skater with a high-quality toolset with our 1st.

Kass Effect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 10:40 PM
  #125
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectProphet View Post
Why select another goalie when we are stacked in net? just select the next BPA that isn't a goalie.

And its not like a late-first round goalie is a sure thing. I'd much rather take a stab at a skater. Roll the dice on under-rated goalies in the later round, and get a skater with a high-quality toolset with our 1st.
Again, this is somewhat twisting the idea of 'BPA' imo. It's not 'picking the next best that isn't X position'...it's picking the best fit for the organization, based on the player's skillset, upside, likelihood of reaching that upside, and fit for this team in terms of identity, prospect pool depth, positional depth, likelihood and timeline for potentially reaching the NHL and making an impact...and on top of all that, what sort of impact they're likely to have.

It's a massive balancing act of many different factors. It's absolutely not just reading down Bob's list and picking the highest available player. Our draft list probably looks absolutely nothing like Bob's consensus list.

All things considered, Subban definitely wouldn't be in my top-30 fits for Vancouver as BPA, and i hope Gillis et al don't have him there either.


In a broader sense though, i agree with what you're saying. All factors considered, i'd much rather take one of a number of different skaters with a quality set of tools, rather than a goaltender i'm not too high on.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.