|
Koopa Kid posted:I was on board with everything until "If Team Canada selected someone he must be good" because that's pretty demonstrably untrue and also somewhat circular in reasoning. Montreal has this unused Zach Fucale floating around if anyone wants to take a gander.
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
I very much like the thread title. I'd honestly love if the Oilers became one of the most hated teams in the NHL now. Suits me just fine.  Only thing missing from the first post is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqRYwjlkEJA So the first overall pick is obviously going to be McDavid for the Oilers, but I'm more interested to see what the Oilers do with Pittsburgh's pick. There's some interesting names that they could potentially draft at 16, but personally I'm hoping that they package the pick and trade it for a top 4 D. I think Chicago's a viable target, seeing as how they need to shed some cap this off-season, and getting somebody like Hjalmarsson or Seabrook for the 16th + Marincin + a prospect could actually work. That's what I'm hoping for, anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
who in the D are looking to have potential? Looking on Colorado's website they were talking up Crouse and all I can think is "no we need defense dammit, we need GOOD defense, we already have one Cody McCleod, we don't need another"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
I'd like to see Calgary grab a Centre or Defenceman. Is there enough depth in this draft for them to grab a quality guy?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Aces High posted:who in the D are looking to have potential? Looking on Colorado's website they were talking up Crouse and all I can think is "no we need defense dammit, we need GOOD defense, we already have one Cody McCleod, we don't need another" Brandon Carlo is a can't-miss defensive prospect (in the sense that he is very tall and thus would be easy to see)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Aces High posted:who in the D are looking to have potential? Looking on Colorado's website they were talking up Crouse and all I can think is "no we need defense dammit, we need GOOD defense, we already have one Cody McCleod, we don't need another" It is possible although unlikely that one of Ivan Provorov or Zack Werenski will make it to #10. Later in the first round you've got guys like Jakub Zboril, Jeremy Roy, and the already-discussed Oliver Kylington. Kylington came in to this year as a contender for the 1-3 spot with Hanifin, but didn't have a good year at all. I saw Roy a bit this year in the Q and he looked real good. Brandon Carlo is a landmine so preemptive condolences to whomever has their team pick him. That said, drafting for need is Always Bad. It's not like the you're expecting the guy you take at 1-10 to be a difference maker for the next few years at least.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:I'd like to see Calgary grab a Centre or Defenceman. Is there enough depth in this draft for them to grab a quality guy? There aren't a ton of great defencemen that will be available in the 20s, but I quite like Travis Dermott and he's ranked anywhere from the mid 2nd to early 3rd round. He's got a bit of stigma as being a top defenceman on a very good offensive team (Erie - played with McDavid on the PP) so teams likely feel his point totals are inflated, but he's a really good two-way guy. He models his game after Duncan Keith, and you can see the similarities in play style. Obviously he's not even close to that level, but he could be a decent top-4 guy in the NHL. He's a good (although not spectacular) skater and a decent PP QB. His decision making is a tad slow maybe, but he's one of those guys that should probably be getting far more first round consideration than he has so far. Hand Knit posted:That said, drafting for need is Always Bad. It's not like the you're expecting the guy you take at 1-10 to be a difference maker for the next few years at least. Yeah, taking anyone other than BPA leads to situations like the Canucks are in where they drafted to flesh out the holes in their depth chart and took a bunch of overagers and projects and have no high skill forwards ready to take over from the Sedins. Select whoever is the best player, preferably a forward. A team's needs will be totally different by the time they step on an NHL ice surface, and if they are you can always make a trade to fill them. The Lightning have done this quite successfully in recent years (although some of that was luck).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:There aren't a ton of great defencemen that will be available in the 20s, but I quite like Travis Dermott and he's ranked anywhere from the mid 2nd to early 3rd round. He's got a bit of stigma as being a top defenceman on a very good offensive team (Erie - played with McDavid on the PP) so teams likely feel his point totals are inflated, but he's a really good two-way guy. He models his game after Duncan Keith, and you can see the similarities in play style. Obviously he's not even close to that level, but he could be a decent top-4 guy in the NHL. He's a good (although not spectacular) skater and a decent PP QB. His decision making is a tad slow maybe, but he's one of those guys that should probably be getting far more first round consideration than he has so far. Calgary picks 15th, does that make a difference? I mean, I'd like to see them trade up, but they'd have to offer their pick plus some kind of asset, and I'm unsure what they'd offer. I can see Calgary picking Colin White from the USNTDP, actually. Burke's well known for his love of U.S. players, and mocks have White going somewhere between 17-25 a bunch. Couple more questions: 1)Any mock drafts you guys recommend? 2) What do you guys think of Nick Merkley and Jansen Harkins?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Want to keep watching Barzal after he leaves Seattle, so hoping the Canucks move up and get him, or Arizona reaches for him at 3 and then gets moved to Seattle.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
WayAbvPar posted:Want to keep watching Barzal after he leaves Seattle, so hoping the Canucks move up and get him, or Arizona reaches for him at 3 and then gets moved to Seattle. I think Barzal's gonna be a keeper.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Calgary picks 15th, does that make a difference? I mean, I'd like to see them trade up, but they'd have to offer their pick plus some kind of asset, and I'm unsure what they'd offer. Yes, for some reason I had it in my head Calgary were picking in the early 20s. At least one of Chabot, Roy or Zboril should be available around then. Roy is an offensive type, and sorta reminds me of Mike Green or Kevin Bieksa. Zboril is an unflashy stay at home type. I'm never keen on players like him, but he had a very good offensive season (33 points in 44 games) and that's hard to argue with. Chabot is a smooth skating two way guy. People talk like he's going to put up points in the NHL, but I don't really see it. He sorta reminds me of Dan Hamhuis a bit in that he's good defensively (for junior, he's still a word in progress with regards to positioning and getting into lanes), I don't expect him to be a powerplay guy in the NHL. None are really can't miss top pairing types. quote:1)Any mock drafts you guys recommend? 1) Corey Pronman does one, but it's an ESPN insiders thing. He's a great scout to follow on twitter and everything he writes is worth a read if you're into prospects. NHL.com also has a couple from their staff writers. They've only done the non-playoff teams so far, but they've expanded to the whole first round closer to the draft in past years if my memory serves me. Various team blogs do one for SBNationin the lead up to the draft and each article is usually pretty in depth, but the quality of writers and interests (analytics and not) varies. They usually start after the playoffs are done. MyNHLdraft.com is regularly updated, but doesn't offer any sort of analysis. It's more useful for getting a general sense of the players available when your team picks. 2) I like Nick Merkley a lot. He put up excellent numbers and turned borderline prospect Rourke Chartier into a 40 goal scorer. He has fast hands and he's always got his head up looking for a pass. He's not afraid to drive the net or stand in front angling for deflections either. He sorta reminds me in Brendan Gallagher in a lot of ways, but not as strong. I'm not sure he'll be a centre at the NHL level (I think he was mostly a RW after Draisatl got back but has played centre before unless I'm crazy) as his defence is suspect and he's not a prototypical centre, but I could see him as a good complimentary plamaking winger. If he's around at 23 I hope the Canucks snap him up (he won't be but I can dream). Jansen Harkins is one of those dime a dozen meh prospects to me. He's big, strong and agile but a slow skater and has zero offensive creativity. He's one of those 'high floor low ceiling' types that teams love, but if he's more than a 3rd liner at the NHL level I'd be surprised. At absolute best he's Shawn Matthias. Not terrible, but frankly not that hard to replace. I like him more than Travis Konecy who's a very similar player. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
I like Konecny and think he'll be a good pick for someone. I wonder if San Jose reaches for him. Wilson loves his 67s.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Konecny would be fine if the Sharks trade down but there should be better players available at 9th.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
I would certainly think Edmonton is considering packaging the 16th with either Marincin or Klefbom to get a top four defenseman.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Why do you jerks hate goalies so much?  Top 5 NA Prospects: 1. Mackenzie Blackwood, Barrie (OHL) 2. Callum Booth, Quebec (QMJHL) 3. Samuel Montembeault, Blainville-Boisbriand (QMJHL) 4. Adin Hill, Portland (WHL) 5. Matej Tomek, Topeka (NAHL) Top 5 EU Prospects: 1. Ilya Samsonov (RUS) 2. Daniel "Darth" Vladar (CZE) 3. Felix Sandstrom (SWE) 4. Ales Stezka (CZE) 5. Joren Van Pottelberghe (SWE)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Why do you jerks hate goalies so much? Because it's well known that goalies are some magical race and cannot be projected with any degree of certainty.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:I would certainly think Edmonton is considering packaging the 16th with either Marincin or Klefbom to get a top four defenseman. marincin maybe (has shown inconsistent talent, but should be a cheap contract and isnt safe from waivers) but klefbom is rapidly turning into one and still on his elc so you can kindly step off oscar, thanks
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
fits posted:marincin maybe (has shown inconsistent talent, but should be a cheap contract and isnt safe from waivers) but klefbom is rapidly turning into one and still on his elc so you can kindly step off oscar, thanks I didn't realize Klefbom made such strides this year. So yeah, Marincin is a good trade asset. And to be honest, Schultz + 16th would get them a pretty badass defenseman. Schultz is bad.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Eichel is pretty fuckin' good and all but I dunno if I buy that he's a better prospect than Patrick Kane was. But it's definitely close.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Eichel is pretty fuckin' good and all but I dunno if I buy that he's a better prospect than Patrick Kane was. But it's definitely close. Kane wasn't even the top ranked NA skater in 2007. That went to Turris. Stupid I know, but there were concerns about his size (he was 5'9 160lbs or so when he was selected). It's only in retrospect that it was such an obvious pick.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:I didn't realize Klefbom made such strides this year. So yeah, Marincin is a good trade asset. And to be honest, Schultz + 16th would get them a pretty badass defenseman. Schultz is bad. i really hope peter can sucker someone into taking schultz for an acutal good asset. schultz can be kinda ok in a limited 3rd pairing/pp role but is going to get at minimum $3m this year because qualifying offers 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
If Edmonton can swing a trade and manage to end up with both McDavid and Werenski, that'd be a drat good draft, even if their later picks don't work out (although with the recent shakeup, that might be less of pre-determined outcome).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Kane wasn't even the top ranked NA skater in 2007. That went to Turris. Stupid I know, but there were concerns about his size (he was 5'9 160lbs or so when he was selected). It's only in retrospect that it was such an obvious pick. Eh, I don't think it takes hindsight to say that a guy who put up 60/90 in his draft year was an amazing prospect.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Kane wasn't even the top ranked NA skater in 2007. That went to Turris. Stupid I know, but there were concerns about his size (he was 5'9 160lbs or so when he was selected). It's only in retrospect that it was such an obvious pick. I remember Chicago printing out Kane, Turris, and Van Riemsdyk jerseys for the draft to disguise who they were going to take. That is pretty weird to read in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Eh, I don't think it takes hindsight to say that a guy who put up 60/90 in his draft year was an amazing prospect. Again, it makes more sense in retrospect. At the time he was seen as good but not amazing player. There was a lot of talk that he was one dimensional and too small for the NHL. It was only a couple years post lockout so the perception of size trumpeting skill was far more apparent. His point totals were staggering, but for some reason that got ignored a lot. I've followed the draft pretty closely for a decade or so now, and I'd say that a player's ppg in juniors has only become the key component in evaluating a player in the last 6 or 7 years. Before then the old school perception of eye test was much more prevalent. Points were more of a way of validating the eye test rather than the reverse as it is today. That may just be selective memory on my part though.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Eh, I don't think it takes hindsight to say that a guy who put up 60/90 in his draft year was an amazing prospect. It does when you consider there are lots of dudes who busted despite putting up similar numbers. I mean, look at Alex Daigle, his junior numbers were gross and people thought he'd at least be a good player, if not straight up great. A lot of dudes put up CRAZY numbers in QMJHL and then shrink under the pressure when they get to the NHL where defence isn't just a suggestion. Jacques Locas, Marc Fortier, Michel Deziel, and Jacques Cossette all put up over 200 points in a season in the QMJHL, and they all failed to succeed at the NHL level. A couple of them never suited up for an NHL team. poo poo, people thought Doug Wickenheiser was gonna be a sure thing but injuries and Montreal's anger over him not being as good as Denis Savard deep-sixed him hard. El Gallinero Gros fucked around with this message at 21:58 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Again, it makes more sense in retrospect. At the time he was seen as good but not amazing player. There was a lot of talk that he was one dimensional and too small for the NHL. It was only a couple years post lockout so the perception of size trumpeting skill was far more apparent. His point totals were staggering, but for some reason that got ignored a lot. I got a laugh out of that Lindros draft in 30 video when they were talking about his abilities. I believe the ranking went size, skill, ~*~charisma~*~.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Again, it makes more sense in retrospect. At the time he was seen as good but not amazing player. There was a lot of talk that he was one dimensional and too small for the NHL. It was only a couple years post lockout so the perception of size trumpeting skill was far more apparent. His point totals were staggering, but for some reason that got ignored a lot. Were you the one who posted that list of drafts re-ordered by the juniors player who had the most points? And how it was for the most part much more successful than most teams were at drafting? That thing ruled, and could have sped up the Oilers rebuild by like fuckin 5 years
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:I got a laugh out of that Lindros draft in 30 video when they were talking about his abilities. I believe the ranking went size, skill, ~*~charisma~*~. I guess they figured charisma=leadership?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I remember Chicago printing out Kane, Turris, and Van Riemsdyk jerseys for the draft to disguise who they were going to take. That is pretty weird to read in retrospect. I wish Chicago took Turris instead. gently caress the 07 Draft (lottery) forever 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Drafting by ppg still results in busts, and guys still get missed. You just bust and miss on different guys. Plus the whole development and opportunity thing. If Kane were drafted in Phoenix, would he have found success? Would Turris have been more successful in Chicago?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
The Dirty Burger posted:Were you the one who posted that list of drafts re-ordered by the juniors player who had the most points? And how it was for the most part much more successful than most teams were at drafting? That thing ruled, and could have sped up the Oilers rebuild by like fuckin 5 years Rhys Jessop did a pretty good piece called We think the Vancouver Canucks might have a scouting problem in which they went back and redid the Canucks drafts by selecting only CHL forwards based on PPG and as a whole it was considerably better than how the Canucks did. It wasn't perfect as it did technically require hindsight (they selected highest PPG between when the Canucks drafted and their next pick, although at the time there would've been no way to tell who would be selected after the pick in question). Sorting by straight CHL PPG isn't perfect, but in general it's far better than going off the ISS or CSS lists. For my own purposes I put together a spreadsheet that normalizes all CHL forwards and defencemen to 72 games (which is the number the WHL plays as opposed to 68 for the Q and O) and adjusts for based on league scoring strength so I get a better idea of how prospects stack up against each other. Ehlers was actually a considerably better goalscorer than Virtanen last year for one. I've run it in retrospect and found that in general it's more predictive of future success (as in you have a higher chance of getting 400 games from a player by normalizing their scoring and selecting the highest ppg available) than rankings or how players were actually drafted, but it's far from perfect. I think I did post my results last year, I can do so again if people are actually interested. Jessop is building a predictive tool based on something he calls the cohort success model that finds players who posted similar career tracks in junior to prospects and sees how they do in the NHL as a predictive model. There's also The Projection Project which uses NHL equivalency (essentially adjusting a leagues scoring down to be comparable to the NHL) and compares players. It has its flaws, but it's a good starting point. Both of those are much better than anything I go into (because I'm lazy and do this for free). It does boggle me that teams still put such an emphasis on traditional scouting. It's slow and expensive, and (obviously) quite subjective. A player drafted in the first round is going to cost a team $2-3M at minimum to sign to an ELC, I'd want to know more about them then just the feelings of a couple former players. Big data is the future, and it's clear it's a much better talent evaluator than humans who are literally walking confirmation bias sacks. Draft picks are essentially stocks that go up and down in value, and no one picks those based on gut feeling anymore. I'm not disavowing traditional scouting entirely, but it should always be the second line of inquiry not the first. Use data models to find under and over valued players then let scouts break ties between them. I imagine a number of teams are doing that at the moment, but it's clearly not all and that's just lunacy to me. Someone is going to find a really good predictive algorithm and kill the league for a few years until people catch up. The Coyotes just hired that 25 year old to be an assistant GM because he seemed to be onto something with video tracking and they didn't want other teams getting his data.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Drafting by ppg still results in busts, and guys still get missed. You just bust and miss on different guys. Plus the whole development and opportunity thing. If Kane were drafted in Phoenix, would he have found success? Would Turris have been more successful in Chicago? This is something I wonder too. I don't know enough about Turris or JVR to know what their ceilings are.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Drafting by ppg still results in busts, and guys still get missed. You just bust and miss on different guys. Plus the whole development and opportunity thing. If Kane were drafted in Phoenix, would he have found success? Would Turris have been more successful in Chicago? Of course, there's no such thing as a sure thing. However, if you have 60% odds of a player becoming a first liner or 20% odds who do you take? The first one is clearly the right choice, but they'll still not make it 4 times out of 10. It's not some damning indictment of skill if a small player fails and a big player succeeds. Taken as a whole, higher PPG has a higher chance of projecting to the NHL. Always go with the safer bet. Teams still insist on taking players that data have shown to have a very low chance of success on the off chance they work out because of outdated ideas and ill conceived personal biases. Take the human element out of something and look at it subjectively first and you have a big advantage. Development always has something to do with it and some players just won't work out. However, maximizing the odds of success of a draft pick is what a team should focus on, and time and time again taking the higher scoring player has been shown to have the highest degree of success. Yes you'll miss out of Milan Lucic and end up with Angelo Esposito occasionally, but in the long run you'll come out ahead and when you're planning 6-8 years down the line (as you should with draft picks) that makes all the difference. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 22:35 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Hand Knit, what's the verdict on Pronman's newest Mock Draft? I have insider and he posted the first 30 names.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
I can't remember the link any more but when someone posted that site where you can compare prospects to each other the only draft comparable for Patrick Kane in terms of PPG in draft year in recent memory was Sidney Crosby. e: and Mcdavid
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I remember Chicago printing out Kane, Turris, and Van Riemsdyk jerseys for the draft to disguise who they were going to take. That is pretty weird to read in retrospect. ThinkTank posted:Again, it makes more sense in retrospect. At the time he was seen as good but not amazing player. There was a lot of talk that he was one dimensional and too small for the NHL. It was only a couple years post lockout so the perception of size trumpeting skill was far more apparent. His point totals were staggering, but for some reason that got ignored a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Heaf posted:Hand Knit, what's the verdict on Pronman's newest Mock Draft? I have insider and he posted the first 30 names. Same as with paywalled prospect lists: posting the list is fine as is paraphrasing the rest of the writeup, but no copy-pasting the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
The fact that Brian Burke wasted a late draft pick on a guy with 653 penalty minutes (!) does not fill me with confidence, but hopefully Treliving talks him out of anything that dumb. I mean, if there's ever a point in the draft where you go "draft the guy with the most points left on the board", that's when you do it. Maybe you get lucky and find somebody like Theo Fleury, or at least a useful AHL guy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Rhys Jessop did a pretty good piece called We think the Vancouver Canucks might have a scouting problem Every time I am reminded that the Canucks passed on Giroux... 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:12
|
|