Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SMantzas

2013 NHL Draft

1,243 posts in this topic

Copper and Blue is doing a great series on draft comparables for the top picks:

 

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/6/4401998/elias-lindholm-draft-comparables - Lindholm

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/6/4403262/sean-monahan-draft-comparables - Monahan

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/5/4397856/valeri-nichushkin-comparables - Nichushkin

 

(also what happened to the links on the new board)

Lindholm's report sounded the most promising. I doubt we would get him, but he seems like he would be such a good Devil. I was actually higher on Monahan until reading his article. The comparable players section didnt look to promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copper and Blue is doing a great series on draft comparables for the top picks:

 

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/6/4401998/elias-lindholm-draft-comparables - Lindholm

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/6/4403262/sean-monahan-draft-comparables - Monahan

http://www.coppernblue.com/2013/6/5/4397856/valeri-nichushkin-comparables - Nichushkin

 

(also what happened to the links on the new board)

 

 

I don't see anything different? Did something change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All speculation, but was listening to an interview with the head of hockeyprospect.com, and they seem to think it be wise for the Devils to trade down (gather some more picks and draft goalie Zach Fucale). The guy wasn't all that enamoured with taking a goalie in the 1st round, but was probably thinking with Brodeur retiring soon and the Devils lacking picks in the draft, it wasn't the worst thing to do. 

 

Oh god that'd be awful.  Trade down fine, take a goalie late, fine, but not in the 1st round.

 

I don't see anything different? Did something change

 

I wasn't able to change them to text links - normally i'd just have them be text saying Nichushkin, Lindholm, etc.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god that'd be awful.  Trade down fine, take a goalie late, fine, but not in the 1st round.

 

 

I wasn't able to change them to text links - normally i'd just have them be text saying Nichushkin, Lindholm, etc.

 

if you want a waste of a pick, draft a goalie lol. Hellloooo Al Montoya, MA Fleury in the best draft ever and apparently Jack Campbell among many many others. You can go find joe blow in Europe for nothing who's probably better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want a waste of a pick, draft a goalie lol. Hellloooo Al Montoya, MA Fleury in the best draft ever and apparently Jack Campbell among many many others. You can go find joe blow in Europe for nothing who's probably better

Seriously. Our system insulates goalies too. I have no problem plucking the best goalie from Europe like Fasth or Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want a waste of a pick, draft a goalie lol. Hellloooo Al Montoya, MA Fleury in the best draft ever and apparently Jack Campbell among many many others. You can go find joe blow in Europe for nothing who's probably better

Just to be the contrarian here, you could end up with Tukka Rask, Marty Brodeur, Cam Ward or Carey Price if you take a goalie in the first round. You could draft a forward in the first round that turns into Pavel Brendl, Jamie Lundmark, Patrik Stefan when guys like Pavel Datsyuk, Ryan Callahan or Brett Hull are just waiting there in the later rounds. You could easily go to Europe and nab a defenseman like Brian Rafalski, or sign Andy Greene as an undrafted free agent instead of wasting a first round pick on Cam Barker.

Just to be clear, I would have a Jets fan draft day reaction if the Devils took a goalie with the ninth pick. Things just aren't as simple as "never draft a goalie in the first round".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, Fucale is a dead ringer for Michael Cera.

zach_fucale_nhl_combine_1.jpg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be the contrarian here, you could end up with Tukka Rask, Marty Brodeur, Cam Ward or Carey Price if you take a goalie in the first round. You could draft a forward in the first round that turns into Pavel Brendl, Jamie Lundmark, Patrik Stefan when guys like Pavel Datsyuk, Ryan Callahan or Brett Hull are just waiting there in the later rounds. You could easily go to Europe and nab a defenseman like Brian Rafalski, or sign Andy Greene as an undrafted free agent instead of wasting a first round pick on Cam Barker. Just to be clear, I would have a Jets fan draft day reaction if the Devils took a goalie with the ninth pick. Things just aren't as simple as "never draft a goalie in the first round". Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

This is a perfect example of non-stochastic thinking.  The trouble is that the uncertainty about goalies is too high, not that goalies picked in the 1st round always bust.  There might be some great goalies picked in the 1st round this year or subsequent years (or past years - Malcolm Subban had a great draft year + 1), but they've consistently underperformed their draft slot relative to defensemen and especially to forwards.  So drafting a goalie high is almost always a mistake, regardless of whether it actually works out, in the same way that doubling down in blackjack is always a mistake on hard 17 even if you hit a 4.

 

I don't believe that any organization has privileged thinking on goalies or has somehow figured out which ones will be NHLers.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of non-stochastic thinking. The trouble is that the uncertainty about goalies is too high, not that goalies picked in the 1st round always bust. There might be some great goalies picked in the 1st round this year or subsequent years (or past years - Malcolm Subban had a great draft year + 1), but they've consistently underperformed their draft slot relative to defensemen and especially to forwards. So drafting a goalie high is almost always a mistake, regardless of whether it actually works out, in the same way that doubling down in blackjack is always a mistake on hard 17 even if you hit a 4.

I don't believe that any organization has privileged thinking on goalies or has somehow figured out which ones will be NHLers.

I looked up stochastic thinking and still don't know what it means.

In any event, each draft is different, and each player is different, which is why one should not view a particular draft pick's chance of success based on position. It's not something you discount, but it's not as simple as the categorical assertion that one should never use this particular pick on this particular position.

Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.

 

It doesn't have to be exactly quantifiable for it to strongly involve probabilities.  It's exactly this kind of rigid, non-probablistic thinking that gets teams into trouble ('we have to have THIS player').  And yes, past results don't guarantee future outcomes - maybe there was some sort of flawed scouting metrics, maybe goalies have gotten a lot more predictable in the last 5 years and the data hasn't caught up to it, but all of these things seem unlikely.  Point is, you're dealing with future outcomes which involve a great deal of unknowns - you're dealing in probability, whether or not you'd like to admit it.  As such, you have to think probabilistically, with a range of outcomes, and the range of outcomes for drafting 1st round goalies is too often either 'Not an NHL player' or 'Not an NHL player that provided any value to our organization'

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your comparison to blackjack is ridiculous. A hockey player's chance of success is not based on some kind of quantifiable probability, like your chance of drawing a particular card. When someone invents a computer program that selects draft picks better than any human, then we can talk.

It doesn't have to be exactly quantifiable for it to strongly involve probabilities. It's exactly this kind of rigid, non-probablistic thinking that gets teams into trouble ('we have to have THIS player'). And yes, past results don't guarantee future outcomes - maybe there was some sort of flawed scouting metrics, maybe goalies have gotten a lot more predictable in the last 5 years and the data hasn't caught up to it, but all of these things seem unlikely. Point is, you're dealing with future outcomes which involve a great deal of unknowns - you're dealing in probability, whether or not you'd like to admit it.

I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal.

There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal. There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

It is not the case any year.  A goalie should never be drafted with a top 10 pick ever.  You seem to imagine that just because teams get value out of 1st round goalie selections that they were good picks, that's why I brought up the blackjack analogy.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said probability has no role, but that it ought to be a much smaller part of the equation than you think it should. If you're playing blackjack correctly, you're going solely on probabilities. A human being's probability of success at playing a game on skates is an entirely different animal. There can be a time and a place to take a goalie with a top ten pick. It's certainly not the case this year. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Just look at the different top 10 goalies recently, not that many have contributed anything. Some have been really good but probably a low percentage of them actually do anything. Look at top 10 forwards, a lot of them can contribute somewhat already when they're 18 and are closer to finished products so you know what you're getting. The best goalies weren't drafted high (at least not most of them). Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Parise, Kopitar, Toews, Kane, Seguin, Hall, Landeskog, Heatley, and I could go on and on showing all the top 10-15 successful forwards and there are fewer defenseman and hardly any goalies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not the case any year. A goalie should never be drafted with a top 10 pick ever. You seem to imagine that just because teams get value out of 1st round goalie selections that they were good picks, that's why I brought up the blackjack analogy.

And that's why blackjack is, at best, a very shaky analogy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at the different top 10 goalies recently, not that many have contributed anything. Some have been really good but probably a low percentage of them actually do anything. Look at top 10 forwards, a lot of them can contribute somewhat already when they're 18 and are closer to finished products so you know what you're getting. The best goalies weren't drafted high (at least not most of them). Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Parise, Kopitar, Toews, Kane, Seguin, Hall, Landeskog, Heatley, and I could go on and on showing all the top 10-15 successful forwards and there are fewer defenseman and hardly any goalies

I understand this. And, absent the right goalie, the other alternatives, and the needs of a particular team, you should be hesitant to draft a goalie with a high pick.

Life is just not a series of black and white scenarios, and mathematical models, rough or approximate, aren't always particularly useful.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shinkaruk's stock seems to be rising lately. Apparently he's a really talented goal scorer, drawing some Parise comparisons from certain people. I'm starting to think that he's our most likely guy, unless Buffalo picks him and leaves us one of the Europeans...which of course, is what I'm hoping for. I don't know, for some reason I just can't see the Devils drafting Shinkaruk, though.

 

Most mocks have Carolina choosing a defenseman, despite their GM hinting (or full-on stating?) that he wants to go for a forward. I still don't know why both Carolina and Edmonton are opting to add forwards when Nurse and Ristolainen both have good shots at becoming franchise defensemen, which is exactly what they need (lol Schultz).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shinkaruk's stock seems to be rising lately. Apparently he's a really talented goal scorer, drawing some Parise comparisons from certain people. I'm starting to think that he's our most likely guy, unless Buffalo picks him and leaves us one of the Europeans...which of course, is what I'm hoping for. I don't know, for some reason I just can't see the Devils drafting Shinkaruk, though.

 

Most mocks have Carolina choosing a defenseman, despite their GM hinting (or full-on stating?) that he wants to go for a forward. I still don't know why both Carolina and Edmonton are opting to add forwards when Nurse and Ristolainen both have good shots at becoming franchise defensemen, which is exactly what they need (lol Schultz).

 

This is part of why mock drafts are terrible.  Jim Rutherford is on the record as saying that the CBA makes drafting defensemen in the first round a bad proposition.  I'd be surprised if he took one this year.  I don't think Nurse or Ristolainen project as franchise defensemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is part of why mock drafts are terrible.  Jim Rutherford is on the record as saying that the CBA makes drafting defensemen in the first round a bad proposition.  I'd be surprised if he took one this year.  I don't think Nurse or Ristolainen project as franchise defensemen.

 

How exactly does the CBA make drafting a defenseman in the first round a bad proposition?  I looked around for Rutherford saying anything like that, and couldn't find anything.  If you have a need on defense and you think the defenseman is better than the next best forward, don't overanalyze everything, and just take the defenseman. 

 

Rutherford has noted that he would like to improve the team on defense.  However, he recently said what everyone else is saying that there's a threshold in this draft where the franchise players end and that Carolina is on the good side of that threshold.  So yeah, it's extremely doubtful that Carolina either drafts a defenseman (since Jones won't be there) or trades down. 

 

Basically, the furthest you can realistically expect the Devils to trade up to would be for Edmonton's seven. 

 

Nessus:  Almost every recent mock draft I've seen has Carolina taking Nischuskin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly does the CBA make drafting a defenseman in the first round a bad proposition?  I looked around for Rutherford saying anything like that, and couldn't find anything.  If you have a need on defense and you think the defenseman is better than the next best forward, don't overanalyze everything, and just take the defenseman.

 

Because Rutherford has said that since defensemen develop later, you get fewer cheap years with them with the UFA age and arbitration age lower in this CBA as compared to the 1995 CBA.  He was totally willing to jettison Jack Johnson when he wanted to play an extra year in school, and I suspect this is part of why he said this.  He's drafted Ryan Murphy since then and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am waiting for a hat myself. Should have looked first. I have one on order now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anybody heard from the team about tickets to the draft?? if not, how is it that we are less than two weeks away and i don't know of anyone with any tickets... with the exception of one STH on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has anybody heard from the team about tickets to the draft?? if not, how is it that we are less than two weeks away and i don't know of anyone with any tickets... with the exception of one STH on here

 

 

From the rumors I hear, after the tickets are given to the STH there will be approx 500 tickets left for the general public given out in pairs to those who have won the raffle they had on the website.

 

The raffle winners are to be announced on the 21st so it looks like if you do not win that you will either have to bum tickets off a STH who has extras or buy them off of someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0